The Ambiguity Of Genitive Of-Construction (A Study Of Semantics)

SKRIPSI

Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra degree

Yulie Indriani 63707010

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER BANDUNG

SKRIPSI

Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree

Yulie Indriani 63707010

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER BANDUNG

vii ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini berjudul The Ambiguity of Genetive of-construction (A Study of Semantics), dilakukan berdasarkan asumsi bahwa genitive of-construction sulit untuk ditafsirkan. Hal ini menyebabkan ambiguitas. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini dilakukan dengan tujuan untuk mengetahui makna apa saja yang dapat ditafsirkan dari genitive of-construction, proposisi apa saja yang dapat dinyatakan dari genitive of-construction, dan implicit case dan state role apa saja yang terdapat dalam genitive of-construction. Dalam penelitian ini, data diambil dari beberapa sumber, yaitu Wuthering Heights, Northanger Abbey, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn, Sense and Sensibility, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, and The Prisoner of Azkaban.

Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode deskriptif analitik, dilakukan dengan cara menggambarkan dan menganalisis data. Metode deskriptif hanya difokuskan pada penggambaran ambiguitas genitive of-construction. Sedangkan metode analitik difokuskan pada analisis struktur semantik yang mengindikasikan genitive of-construction yang ambigu.

Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah adanya 3 klasifikasi yang muncul; pertama, Genitive of-construction yang menyatakan Event proposition ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action; ditandai oleh impllicit Agent atau Affceted; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action atau Beneficiary; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Beneficiary. Kedua, Genitive of-construction yang menyatakan State atau Event Proposition ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action. Ketiga, Genitive of-construction yang menyatakan Event dan State Proposition ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action atau Comment; ditandai oleh Agent atau Action atau Comment atau Beneficiary; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Comment; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Affected atau Comment. Analisis membuktikan bahwa genitive of-construction dapat menjadi ambigu karena ada beberapa case dan state role yang dihilangkan. Selain itu, hal ini juga terjadi dalam sebuah kalimat karena tidak ada kata, frasa ataupun klausa yang memberikan informasi tambahan mengenai genitive of-contruction

Kata kunci: Genitive of-construction, Event Proposition, State Proposition, implicit case dan state roles.

vi ABSTRACT

The research entitled The Ambiguity of Genitive of-construction (A Study of Semantics) is conducted based on the assumption that the genitive of-construction is hard to interpret. Then, it causes the ambiguity. Thus, this research is purposed to find out the meanings resulted from the ambiguity of genitive of-construction, the propositions encoded from the ambiguity of genitive of-construction, and the implicit case and state roles involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. In this research, the data were collected from several data sources, such as Wuthering Heights, Northanger Abbey, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn, Sense and Sensibility, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, and Prisoner of Azkaban.

The method used in this research is analytic descriptive method, conducted by describing and analyzing the data. The descriptive method is focused on the description of ambiguity of genitive of-construction. Meanwhile, the analytic method is focused on the analysis of the semantic structure indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction.

As the result of the research, there were 3 classifications emerge; first, Genitive of-constructions encode Event propositions which were marked by

implicit Agent or Action; implicit Agent or Affected; implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary; implicit Agent or Beneficiary. Second, Genitive of-constructions

encode State Propositions which were marked by implicit Agent or Action. Third, Genitive of-constructions encode Event and State Propositions which were marked by implicit Agent or Action; implicit Agent or Action or Comment; implicit Agent or Action or Comment or Beneficiary; implicit Agent or Comment; implicit Agent or Affected or Comment. The analysis proved that the genitive of-construction could be ambiguous since there were some case and state roles which were left implicit. In addition, it could also be ambiguous in sentence since there were no words, phrases, or clauses which gave more information about genitive of-construction

Keywords: Genitive of-construction, Event Proposition, State Proposition, Implicit case and state roles.

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This skripsi would not finish without supporting and helping from a lot of people. Thus, I want to express my appreciation for the finishing of this skripsi to the following:

1. Prof. Dr. H. Moh. Tadjudin, M.A., as The Dean of Faculty of Letters.

2. Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum., The Head of Departement of English Letters, thank you for your advise.

3. Asih Prihandini, S.S., M.Hum., as the coordinator of skripsi, thank you for your advise and help.

4. Dr. Nia Kurniasih, as the Advisor I and Examiner I, thank you for spending time to supervise the writing of this skripsi.

5. M.Rayhan Bustam, S.S., as the Advisor II, thank you for your patience and advise to supervise the writing of this skripsi.

6. Dr. Juanda, as homeroom lecturer of ’07 and Examiner II, thank you for your help, patience, and advise.

7. Tatan Tawami, S.S., as Examiner III, thank you for your help, and advice 8. All English Department teachers and staffs.

Bandung, July, 2011

1

This chapter is concerned with the introduction of the research. The background to the study, research questions, objectives, significance to knowledge, and framework of theories will be described.

1.1 Background to the Study

As human being, we need to communicate with each other in order to interact. In this case, we can make verbal or non-verbal communication. In verbal communication, we can convey a message through conversations or texts. Meanwhile, in non-verbal communication, we can convey the message through body language or expression. However, in this research, the writer only focuses on verbal communication in which the writer conveys the message to the reader through sentences, clauses, or phrases. Here, the reader will understand the message if the writer conveys it explicitly in the text. Vice versa, there will be misunderstanding if the writer conveys message implicitly. The reader will interpret the message into some meanings; it means that the message will be ambiguous. For instance, the writer writes a sentence “a man hit a girl with an umbrella”, the reader will interpret the sentence into two meanings; first, the reader thought that the writer told about the man hitting a girl using an umbrella; second, the reader thought that the writer told about the man hitting a girl who used an umbrella.

The above case is an example of ambiguous sentence. However, it can also happen in a phrase since there are some words which are left implicit. The implicit words cause a phrase to have many possibilities of ambiguity. Thus, the reader will be hard to interpret the message. The cases demand the writer to study more about the understanding of a message. In this case, the writer only focuses on the understanding of a phrase. It is concerned with genitive of-construction. Genitive of-construction is a kind of genitive constructions; it consists of two noun phrases which are separated by preposition of. It can indicate various relationships other than possession.

There are two previous researchers who did the researches relating to this research. The first one is entitled Konstruksi Posesif Bahasa Inggris written by Sari (2006); the case which is examined in this research is the possessive constructions in English; it is focused on the possessor in possession relation, the possessive relation of possessor-possessee, and the interpreted meanings of possessive construction. The second research is entitled The Analysis of Definite and Indefinite Possessive in Lauren Weisberger’s The Devil Wears Prada written by Amelia (2008). This research is focused on definite and indefinite in double possessive.

As stated above, the research written by Sari (2006) analyzed the possessive construction in English. In addition, Amelia (2009) analyzed definite and indefinite in double possessive. However, those researchers did not analyze whether the genitive of-construction are ambiguous or not. From the explanation

and the previous researches, it convinces the writer that ambiguity of genitive of-construction is interesting to be analyzed.

Actually, Larson uses term skewing to describe inappropriateness between semantic structure and grammatical structure. Meanwhile, Quirk uses the term ambiguity. In this research, the writer prefers to choose the term ambiguity which is taken from Quirk since it is more compatible to describe genitive of-construction which has many possibilities of ambiguity. Therefore, the title “The Ambiguity of Genitive of-construction” is chosen as the title of the research.

In this research, the writer attempts to examine the ambiguity of genitive of-construction by analyzing the meanings which are encoded in the form of proposition and implicit case and state roles involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. By analyzing the meanings in the form of proposition, the writer can examine case and state roles involved in the genitive of-construction. According to Larson (1984:189), proposition is a grouping of concepts into a unit which communicates. In addition, by analyzing the proposition, the writer can show kinds of propositions encoded in the genitive of-construction. It can happen since genitive of-construction can encode State Propositions, Event Propositions, and two propositions (State and Event Propositions). Then, by examining case and state roles involved, the writer can examine the implicit case and state roles which cause the ambiguity.

1.2 Research Questions

Based on the case of ambiguity of genitive of-construction which is analyzed, the writer finds some problems:

1. What meanings are resulted from the ambiguity of genitive of-construction?

2. What propositions are encoded by the ambiguity of genitive of-construction?

3. What implicit case and state roles are involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction?

1.3 Objectives

The study of the ambiguity of genitive of-construction is proposed:

1. Analyzing the meanings resulted from the encoding of genitive of-construction.

2. Analyzing the implicit case and state roles involved in the encoding of genitive of-construction.

3. Analyzing the propositions encoded in the genitive of-construction based on its case and state roles.

1.4 Significance to Knowledge

This research involves noun phrase which is constructed by genitive of-construction categorized as ambiguity of genitive of-of-construction. This research is analyzed based on semantic structures. Therefore, the readers can understand how

to analyze genitive of-construction which has posibilities of ambiguity. Hopefully, this research will be helpful for the readers, especially for students of English Department to help them in analyzing genitive of-construction.

1.5 Framework of the Theories

In analyzing the study of ambiguity of genitive of-construction, the writer applies some theories which support this research. The grand theory of this research is from Larson (1984). According to Larson “sometimes the genitive of-construction can be ambiguous and hard to interpret”. In analyzing this research, the writer also uses syntax theory as a supporting theory. The writer uses syntax theories from Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985), Huddleston (1984) about genitive of-construction. According to Quirk, “the function and meaning of of-genitive is similar to genitive case”.

In addition, the writer uses semantic theories in order to analyze the meanings which can be interpreted in genitive of-construction and analyze the semantic structures which construct the genitive of-construction. The writer uses semantics theories from Larson (1984), Cruse, and Halliday (1985) about propositions and case roles which are involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. The writer also uses another supporting theories from Linda Thomas (1993), Amelia (2008), Sari (2006), Maulana (2009), and Puspitasari (2008).

6

This chapter explains about the theories used to analyze the data in this research. It is divided into two main points, i.e. syntax, and semantics. Each of two main points consists of several applied theories in this research.

This research only analyzes the ambiguity of genitive of-construction semantically. However, it cannot be separated from the theory of syntax since the genitive of-construction is a part of syntax field. Therefore, the theory of syntax is used as a supporting theory. Before the writer gives further explanation about the theory of syntax, it will be better if we know the definition of syntax itself.

2.1 Syntax

Thomas (1993:1) states that syntax is the study which seeks to describe the way words fit together to form sentences or utterances. Furthermore, Chaer (1994:2006) argues that:

Pembahasan sintaksis meliputi (1) Struktur sintaksis: masalah fungsi, kategori dan peran sintaksis (2) satuan-satuan sintaksis yang berupa kata, frasa, klausa, kalimat, dan wacana (3) hal-hal lain ynag berkenaan dengan sintaksis: modus, aspek, dan sebagainya.

Based on the above definition, it can be concluded that syntax is the study of words, phrases, clauses to form sentences or utterances. In this case, the writer analyze genitive of-construction. Genitive of-construction is a kind of phrases

which is examined in syntax. Therefore, we need to know kinds of phrases before we discuss further theory of genitive of-construction.

According to Quirk (1985: 60), there are five formal categories of phrases: noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase, adverbial phrase, and prepositional phrase. Here, the writer will explain the phrases one by one as follow:

1) Noun Phrase

Noun phrase consists of either determiner and noun, or just noun. The most meaningful part of a noun phrase is the noun. It is the obligatory constituent and is the head of the noun phrase.

For instance:

The child Determiner Noun 2) Verb Phrase

Functioning as verb. It consists of either verb and noun phrase, or just verb. He eats an apple

NP V NP VP 3) Adjective Phrase

Adjective phrase is used to pre-modify nouns. Adjective phrase, like any other phrases, can consist of one or more than one element. Within the noun phrase, then, the adjective phrase has the function of pre-modifying the head.

For example:

The fat dog

Determiner Adjective Phrase Noun as Pre-modifier

4) Adverbial Phrase

In terms of a phrase category, an Adverbial Phrase or AdvP can be formed by one (only an adverb) or more constituents (degree adverb + adverb). Adverb phrase is used to modify a verb. A degree adverb, as its name suggests, tell us to what degree something is done, so a degree adverb is here said to modify or limit the sense of an adverb.

For example:

Ken snores very loudly Noun Verb degree Adverb

NP VP AdvP

5) Prepositional Phrase

Prepositions (P) belong to a small group or class of words which express relations of place, direction, time or possession. Words belonging to this class include, of, at, to, from, till, with, for, beside, against, up, down, by and so on. The preposition is a part of Prepositional Phrase (PP). The Prepositional Phrase consists of either preposition and noun phrase, or just a preposition.

For instance:

The incineration of the astronauts Det Noun Prep det Noun

Noun Phrase Noun Phrase

PP

Genitive of-construction is a kind of genitive constructions. Actually, there are two kinds of genitive constructions; they are genitive construction by inflection ’s and genitive construction by of-construction (of-phrase). According to Quirk (1985: 1276-1277), genitive ’s construction is a genitive case which consists of two noun phrases; one a noun phrase marked for the genitive case by inflection ’s; the other a succeeding and super ordinate noun phrase unmarked for the case in which the genitive noun phrase is embedded with a determinative function; determinative function mean that the genitive noun phrase functions like a definite determiner. For Example, the following are some cases of genitive ’s construction; the city’s population, the dog’s collar, and the family’s car.

Meanwhile, Quirk (1985: 1276) also states that the genitive of-construction consists of the superordinate noun phrase precedes a noun phrase introduced by of. Actually, the genitive of-construction is often equivalent in meaning to the genitive ’s construction. However, the grammatical status of the genitive ’s construction is different from the genitive of-construction. The genitive of-construction fuctions like a post modifier with the super ordinate noun phrase either definite or indefinite.

2.2 Semantics

Since the genitive of-construction is examined semantically, we have to know the definition of semantic itself. According to Palmer (1981: 1), semantics is the technical term used to refer to the study of meaning and since meaning is a part of language, semantics is a part of linguistics. In addition, Saed (2003: 3) argues that semantics is the study of the meanings of words and sentences. Thus, based on the definitions, it can be concluded that semantics is the study about meanings of words and sentences.

2.2.1 Meanings

Based on the above definition, semantics is the study about meanings. According to Lyons (1985: 136), meanings are ideas or concepts which can be transferred from the mind of the hearer by embodying them as they were, in the form of one language or another. Meanwhile, Palmer (1976: 7) states that meaning do no seem to be stable but to depend upon speaker, hearer, and context. In addition, Keraf (1990: 25) states:

Makna adalah unit dari kata dalam suatu bahasa yang mengandung dua aspek, yaitu: bentuk atau ekspresi dan makna atau isi. Bentuk adalah aspek yang dapat ditangkap oleh panca indera yaitu pendengaran dan penglihatan. Sedangkan isi adalah aspek yang menyebabkan reaksi yang hadir dalam pikiran pendengar/pembaca karena stimulasi dari bentuk.

Based on the above definition, it can be concluded that meaning is an unstable concept in which it is transferred to the hearer or reader’s mind through the sense of hearing or sight.

2.2.2 Semantic Structure

In this research, genitive of-construction is examined semantically based on the semantic structure. According to Larson (1984: 26), semantic structure is more nearly universal than grammatical structure. That is type of units, the features, and the relationships are essentially the same for all languages. THINGS, EVENTS, ATTRIBUTES, or RELATIONS.

Based on the above definition, the writer concludes that semantic structure is the way to analyze meaning components (THINGS, EVENT, ATTRIBUTES, or RELATION) in order to represent a proposition.

2.2.3 Proposition

In this case, the writer examines the ambiguity of genitive of-construction by analyzing the meanings in the form of proposition and implicit case and state roles involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. Thus, we have to know the definition of proposition itself. According to Larson (1984: 26), proposition is a grouping of concepts into a unit which communicates. A proposition most often takes the form of a clause or simple sentence in the grammatical structure, but not always. It may be encoded in a variety of forms.

Semantic proposition occurs in all language. They consist of concepts (groupings of meaning components) related to one another with an EVENT, THING, or ATTRIBUTE as the central concept. There are two main kinds of propositions, i.e. State Proposition and Event Proposition. The writer will explain each proposition, as follows:

2.2.3.1 State Proposition

Larson (1984: 214) also explains further information about State Proposition. He states that a state proposition consists of two main parts and the relations between them. These two parts are topic and comment. The topic is the THING or ATRIBUTE which being talked about. Meanwhile, the comment is what is being said about the topic. A state proposition will have a THING or ATTRIBUTE as the central concept. State propositions do not have an EVENT concept central to the proposition. They consist of THING or ATTRIBUTE being used to describe or identify the topic plus state relation. For instance, the book is Peter’s; the topic is BOOK; and it is related to the central concept PETER by the relation of ownership.

There are a number of examples are given bellow; the first coloumn is the topic concept; second is the relation concept; third is the comment concept; and fourth is the surface form of State Proposition.

TOPIC RELATION COMMENT ENGLISH FORM

Dog Naming Fido The dog’s name is

Fido

That car ownership I That car is mine

The table Substance Wood The table is made of

wood

The story Depiction Bill The story is about

Bill

Mary Kinship my sister Mary is my sister

This bag Containership Rice This bag contains rice

Car Location Garage Car is in the garage

Branch Partitive Tree A branch is a part of

tree Table 2.1 State Proposition (Larson, 1984: 215)

2.2.3.2 Event Proposition

In addition, Larson (1984: 199) also explains about Event Proposition. He states that all Event Propositions consist of at least a central EVENT concept and an additional THING concept. The central EVENT concept may refer to an action, an experience, or a process. Action would be such concept as RUN, HIT, EAT, and SWIM. Experiences are concept which refers to the activities of the five senses or to cognitive or psychological activities, as for example, SMELL, SEE, HEAR, THINK, COVET. Processes always represent a change of state (from one condition or state of being to another). For example, DIE, BECOME SOUR, and FREEZE are processes (Beekman, Callow, and Kopesec, 1981: 56). In Event Proposition, the THING and ATRIBUTE concepts are related to the central EVENT concept by relation which are often called case role.

Case role defined:

1. The agent is the THING which does the action: that is, the person or object which is doer of the EVENT. For example:

John ran fast.

2. The causer may seem very much like agent first. The difference is that the causer is the THING which instigates the EVENT rather that actually doing it. A person or object causes an action or process to happen. For example:

Peter tripped John. (Peter caused John to trip)

3. The affected is the THING that undergoes the EVENT or is affected by the EVENT. The affected refers to the one who experiences an EVENT or the person or object which undergoes the EVENT; that is “feels the effect of”. For instance:

The dog ate the meat

4. The beneficiary is the THING that is advantaged by the EVENT. The beneficiary is not affected as directly as the affected.

John sold the car for a friend.

5. The accompaniment is the THING which participates in close association with the agent, causer, or affected in an EVENT. It is like a secondary agent, causer, or affected. For instance:

John went to the park with his dog.

6. The resultant is that which is produced by the EVENT. There is always close relationship between the EVENT and the resultant. For instance:

7. The instrument is the THING used to carry out an EVENT. It is usually an inanimate object. For example:

Mary wrote with a pencil.

8. The location is the THING which identifies the spatial placement of an EVENT, that is, the source, the place of, or the destination of an EVENT. For example:

Jane ran away from home.

9. The goal is the THING towards which an action directed. For instance: John laughed at Peter.

10.The time, identifies the temporal placement of an EVENT. It tells when the EVENT took place. Or it may indicate the duration of the EVENT. For instance:

John went to the college three weeks ago.

11.The manner is a qualification of the EVENT. For example: The man ran quickly.

12. The measure is the qualification of the EVENT. For example: John prays frequently.

2.2.4 Genitive of-construction

In the beginning of this chapter, the writer explains the genitive of-construction syntactically. Now, the writer also will explain it semantically. Semantically, Larson (1984: 228) states the genitive of-construction is used to encode semantic structures. The genitive of- construction is most easily

recognized by the word of occurring between two nouns. For example, the following are some genitive of-constructions; the house of John, the wing of the bird, the deconstruction of the city, and the branches of the tree. The possessive phrase is often used in the same way as the genitive construction. For example, the following are some possessive phrases of this kind: John’s house, the bird’s wing, the city’s deconstruction, and the tree’s branches.

Some genitive of-constructions stand for a State Proposition, some for Event Proposition, and some for two propositions. First, look at some examples of genitive of-constructions which stand for State Propositions. In the first column, the genitive of-construction is given, and in the second, it is reworded as State Proposition.

Genitive of-Construction State Proposition

The house of John The house belongs to John

The wing of the bird The wing is part of the bird

A city of Africa The city is in Africa

A cup of cold water The cup contains water

A crown of gold The crown is made of gold

Table 2.2 Encode State Proposition (Larson, 1984: 228)

Many genitive of-constructions are used to encode Event Propositions. Below, the genitive construction is given in the first column, and the Event Proposition which it stands for is given in the second column.

Genitive of-construction Event Proposition

The error of Balaam Balaam erred

The death of John John died

The growling of the lion The lion growled

Table 2.3 Encode Event Proposition (Larson, 1984: 229)

Sometimes the genitive of-construction contains two propositions. Notice the following:

Genitive of-construction Proposition

The labour of love (Someone) labours because (they) love (someone)

The forgiveness of sins (Someone) will forgive that (someone) has sinned

The knowledge of his will (Someone) knows that (someone) wills Table 2.4 Encode State and Event Proposition (Larson, 1984: 229)

Sometimes the genitive of-construction can be ambiguous and hard to interpret. For example, the shooting of the hunters can be interpreted into two meanings; (someone) shot the hunters or the hinters shot at (something). The ambiguity arises because, when a genitive construction encodes an EVENT, some parts of the Event Proposition must be left implicit in order to use the genitive of-construction.

18

This chapter is concerned with the object of this research and the method applied in conducting this research. Here, the research method is divided into two parts, i.e. data collection and data analysis.

3.1 Research Object

The object of this research is the ambiguity of genitive of-construction which is related to the meanings in the form of proposition and implicit case and state roles. The data were collected from several data sources, such as novels and American corpus. The writer took several data sources since there were various data indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction.

3.2 Research Method

The method used in this research is analytic descriptive. According to Ratna (2006: 53):

Metode deskriptif analitik dilakukan dengan cara mendeskripsikan fakta-fakta-fakta yang kemudian disusul dengan analisis. Secara etimologis deskripsi dan analisis berarti menguraikan.

Based on the above definition, the writer concluded that the analytic descriptive method is conducted by describing and analyzing the facts as research data. Thus, the descriptive method is an appropriate method since it describes the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. Meanwhile, the analytic method is applied

to analyze the semantic structure indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. In conducting the research method, there are two ways which are done; they are data collection and data analysis.

3.2.1 Data Collection

To get valid data, data collection is an important way that has to be done in conducting the research. In this research, the writer conducted library research since it is an appropriate method to collect the valid data. By using library research, the writer could get many references to conduct this research.

The data of the ambiguity of genitive of-construction were collected from several data sources. The writer conducted several ways in collecting data. First, the writer chose the data source; in conducting the research, it is needed to choose the data source in order to get valid data. Based on previous explanation, it is stated that the writer took data from several novels, such as Wuthering Heights, Northanger Abbey, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn, Sense and Sensibility, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, and The Prisoner of Azkaban. In addition, the data were also taken from American Corpus. Those several data sources were taken since there are various data indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. Second, the writer read the data sources; in finding the data indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction, it is needed to read the data sources. Third, the writer found and marked the data; after reading the data sources, the writer got the data by finding the data indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction; then, marking the

data by underlining the cases of ambiguity of genitive of-construction. Fourth, the writer selected the data to be analyzed; here, the data were analyzed semantically.

3.2.2 Data Analysis

After collecting the data, the writer analyzed them by applying several ways. First, the writer interpreted the meanings of the data in the form of propositions; here, the writer analyzed the data semantically by interpreting the meanings of the data of genitive of-construction indicating ambiguity in the form of propositions; it was done in order to indicate the ambiguity. Second, the writer analyzed the data based on semantic structure; in this case, the writer analyzed the propositions semantically by analyzing them based on semantic structure; here, the writer analyzed the implicit case and state roles; the case roles can be classified as Agent, Action, Affected, Beneficiary, Accompaniment, Resultant, Instrument, Location, Goal, Time, Manner and Measure; the state roles can be classified as Topic, Comment and Relation; it was done since the writer wanted to prove that the data of genitive of-construction could indicate the ambiguity.

There are two examples of data analysis of the ambiguity of genitive of- construction:

Corpus 1

The talk of madman (WH: 175)

Semantically, the phrase the talk of madman is ambiguous since it can be interpreted into some ways. There are two meanings which the writer got from the above phrase; first, madman talked about something; second, someone talked

about madman. To make it clear that the phrase is ambiguous, the writer analyzed each meaning.

First meaning:

Madman talked about (something)

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Affected

From the above meaning, there are some case roles involved in the meaning madman talked about something. In the meaning, madman is the THING which has a case role as an Agent since madman did an EVENT. The EVENT is talked which has a case role as an Action since it is done by an Agent (madman). Then, there is something which is affected by madman (Agent). Therefore, something is the THING which has a case role as an Affected. In this classification, the meaning madman talked about something is marked by implicit Affected since the phrase the talk of madman doesn’t mention the word something which has a case role as an Affected in the meaning. The words someone is left implicit in order to make the genitive of-construction the talk of madman. But, the implicit case role causes some interpretation since there is implicit information in the phrase the talk of madman.

Second meaning:

Someone talked about madman

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Affected

As can be seen that the above meaning involves some case roles; they are Agent, Action and Affected. In the meaning, someone is the THING which is identified as an Agent since someone did an EVENT. The EVENT is talked which is identified as an Action since it is done by the Agent (someone). Then, someone (Agent) talked (Action) about something. In this case, something is madman which is identified as an Affected since it is affected by an Agent (someone). In this classification, the meaning of someone talked about madman is marked by implicit Agent since in the phrase the talk of madman doesn’t mention the word someone which has a case role as an Agent in the meaning. The phrase the talk of madman just mention the word talk (Action) and madman (Affected). Therefore, the implicit word someone (Agent) causes some interpretation in the phrase the talk of madman. It means that there is implicit information which is caused by the implicit case role Agent (someone). The word someone (Agent) is left implicit in order to make the genitive of-construction.

However, the phrase the talk of madman is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

The phrase the talk of madman is still ambiguous in the above sentence. There are no words or phrases which explain the phrase the talk of madman. Therefore, the phrase does not give a clear information whether madman or someone who talked.

Corpus 2

The disturbance of Catherine (W H: 61)

The phrase the disturbance of Catherine is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into some meanings. There are two meanings which the writer got from the phrase; first, Catherine disturbed someone; second, someone disturbed Catherine. In this case, the writer analyzed the meanings one by one. First meaning:

Catherine disturbed (someone) THING EVENT THING as as as Agent Action Affected

As can be seen that the meaning Catherine disturbed someone involves some case roles; they are Agent, Action and Affected. In this case, Catherine is the THING which has a case role as an Agent since Catherine did an EVENT. The EVENT is disturbed which is done by Catherine (Agent). Thus, disturbed has a case role as an Action. Then, there is someone who is affected by an Action that the Agent did. Therefore, someone is the THING which has a case role as an Affected. In this classification, the meaning Catherine disturbed someone is marked by implicit Affected since the phrase the disturbance of Catherine doesn’t

mention the word someone which has a case role as an Affected in the meaning. The words someone is left implicit in order to make the genitive of-construction the disturbance of Catherine. But, the implicit case roles cause some interpretation since there is implicit information in the phrase the disturbance of Catherine.

Second meaning:

(Someone) disturbed Catherine THING EVENT THING as as as Agent Action Affected

The above meaning shows that there are some case roles involved in the meaning someone disturbed Catherine; they are Agent, Action and Affected. In the meaning, someone is identified as an Agent since it is the THING which did an EVENT. The EVENT is disturbed which is identified as an Action since it is done by an Agent (someone). Then, there is someone who is affected by the Action that the Agent did. In this case, someone is Catherine which is identified as an Affected. In this classification, the meaning someone disturbed Catherine is marked by implicit Agent and Action since the phrase the disturbance of Catherine doesn’t mention the word someone which has a case role as an Agent and the word disturbed which has a case role as an Action in the meaning. The words someone and disturbed are left implicit in order to make the genitive of-construction the disturbance of Catherine. But, the implicit case roles cause some

interpretation since there is implicit information in the phrase the disturbance of Catherine.

Although the phrase is in the sentence, it still has ambiguous meanings.

With that he dashed head foremost out of the room, amid the merriment of the master and mistress, and to the disturbance of Catherine. (Wuthering Heights: 61)

In the sentence, the phrase is not explained by another words, phrases or clause which give clear information whether the disturbance is made by someone or Catherine.

26

This chapter gives a deeper explanation about the analysis of data based on the classifications of data which the writer got from several data sources, such as novels, and American Corpus. Therefore, this chapter is divided into two parts, i.e. classification and analysis.

4.1 Genitive of-constructions that encode Event Proposition

In this classification, the meanings of genitive of-construction only encode Event Proposition in which an EVENT concept has a function as a central concept. There are 23 data of genitive of-constructions that encode Event proposition. Each data can be interpreted into some meanings. Each meaning has different case roles which are left implicit. Thus, the writer divided this classification more specifically into 4 subclassifications based on the implicit case roles.

4.1.1 Event Proposition which is marked by Implicit Agent or Action Here, there are 4 data that show genitive of-constructions only encode Event Propositions. However, each meaning of genitive of-construction has different implicit case roles. The Event Proposition is marked by implicit Agent or Action. It means that the meanings have implicit Agent or implicit Action or both from one phrase.

(01) [01] The stir of society (WH:1)

The phrase the stir of society is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning, someone made a stir in a society is marked by implicit Agent; second meaning, society made a stir is marked by implicit Action. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action. In this case, the writer analyzed the meanings one by one.

First meaning:

(Someone) (made) a stir in society THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Resultant Location

The above description shows that the meaning someone made a stir in a society involves 4 case roles; they are Agent, Action, Resultant, and Location. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (made); the Resultant (stir) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did the Action; the Location is the THING which identified the spatial placement of an EVENT. The meaning someone made a stir in society is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the stir of society; the Agent (someone) and Action (made) are left implicit. Those implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

Society (made) a stir THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Resultant

As can be seen that there are 3 case roles involved in the meaning society made a stir; Agent, Action and Resultant. The Agent (society) is the THING which did an Action (made); the Resultant (stir) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action. The meaning society made a stir is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the stir of society. The Action (made) is left implicit; it causes the ambiguity.

However, the phrase the sir of society is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

In all England, I do not believe that I could have fixed on a situation so completely removed from the stir of society.

In the sentence, the phrase is not explained by the other words, phrases or clauses which give clear information whether the phrase the stir of society means someone made a stir in society or society made a stir. The sentence just give an information that the speaker could fix the stir of society; we did not know who caused the stir; whether there was someone who made the stir in society or whether the society itself who made the stir.

(02) [04] My idea of Catherine Earnshaw(WH: 75)

Semantically, the above phrase can be interpreted into two meanings; first meaning is I describe Catherine Earnshaw is marked by implicit Agent and Action; second meaning is I imagine to be Catherine Earnshaw is marked by implicit Agent and Action. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action.

First meaning:

(I) (describe) Catherine Earnshaw THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Affected

As can be seen that the above meaning consists of 3 case roles; Agent, Action, Affected Affected. The Agent (I) is the THING which did an Action (describe); the Affected (Catherine Earnshaw) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action. The meaning I describe Catherine Earnshaw is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase my idea of Catherine Earnshaw; the Agent (I) and Action (describe) are left implicit. Those implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(I) (imagine) to be Catherine Earnshaw

THING EVENT THING

as as as

The above meaning shows that it involves 3 case roles; Agent, Action, and Affected. The Agent (I) is the THING which did an Action (imagine); the Affected (Catherine Earnshaw) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action. The meaning I imagine to be Catherine Earnshaw is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase my idea of Catherine Earnshaw; the Agent (I) and Action (describe) are left implicit. Those implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

However, the phrase my idea of Catherine Earnshaw is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

I marvelled much how he, with a mind to correspond with his person, could fancy my idea of Catherine Earnshaw.

The above sentence just give an information that the speaker admired someone since he could fancy my idea of Catherine Earnshaw. However, there are no words, phrases or clauses which explain whether he could fancy when the speaker described Catherine Earnshaw or he could fancy when the speaker imagined to be Catherine Earnshaw.

4.1.2 Event Proposition which is marked by Implicit Agent or Affected In this subclassification, there are 11 data of genitive of-constructions. Each data which encodes Event Proposition is marked by implicit Agent or Affected. It means that the meanings have only implicit Agent or implicit Affected or both from one phrase.

(01) [03] The disturbance of Catherine (W H: 61)

The phrase the disturbance of Catherine is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into some meanings. There are two meanings which the writer got from the phrase; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is Catherine disturbed someone is marked by implicit Affected; second meaning is someone disturbed Catherine which is marked by implicit Agent. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected. In this case, the writer analyzed the meanings one by one.

First meaning:

Catherine disturbed (someone) THING EVENT THING as as as Agent Action Affected

As can be seen that the meaning Catherine disturbed someone encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles; they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (Catherine) is the THING which did an Action (disturbed); the Affected (someone) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning Catherine disturbed someone is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the disturbance of Catherine; here, the Affected (someone) and is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) disturbed Catherine THING EVENT THING as as as Agent Action Affected

The above meaning shows that there are some case roles involved in the meaning someone disturbed Catherine; they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (disturbed); the Affected (Catherine) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning someone disturbed Catherine is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the disturbance of Catherine; here, the Agent (someone) and is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Although the phrase the disturbance of Catherine is in the sentence, it still has ambiguous meanings.

With that he dashed head foremost out of the room, amid the merriment of the master and mistress, and to the disturbance of Catherine. (Wuthering Heights: 61)

In the sentence, the phrase is not explained by the other words, phrases or clause which give clear information whether the disturbance is made by someone or Catherine.

(02) [07] The talk of madman (WH: 175)

Semantically, the phrase the talk of madman is ambiguous since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is madman talked about something which is marked by implicit Affected; second meaning is someone talked about madman which is marked by implicit Agent. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected. To make it clear that the phrase is ambiguous, the writer analyzed each meanings.

First meaning:

Madman talked about (something)

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Affected

From the above description, the meaning madman talked about something encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (madman) is the THING which did an Action (talked); the Affected (something) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning madman talked about something is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the talk of madman; here, the Affected (something) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) talked about madman

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Affected

As can be seen that the meaning someone talked about madman encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (talked); the Affected (madman) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning someone talked about madman is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the talk of madman; here, the Agent (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

However, the phrase the talk of madman is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

“Mr. Heathcliff,” said I, “this is the talk of madman”.

The phrase the talk of madman is still ambiguous in the above sentence. There are no words or phrases which explain the phrase the talk of madman. Therefore, the phrase doesn’t give a clear information whether madman or someone who talked.

(03) [11] The influence of Joseph’s complaints (WH: 376)

Semantically, the above phrase is ambiguous; it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is Joseph

influenced someone with his complaints which is marked by implicit Affected; second meaning is someone influence someone else with Joseph’s complaints which is marked by implicit Agent and Affected. Hence, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected. Let’s take a look the analysis as follows:

First meaning:

Joseph influenced (someone) with his complaints

THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Affected Instrument

The above meaning shows that there are 4 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Affected and Instrument. The Agent (Joseph) is the THING which did an Action (influenced); the Affected (someone) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Instrument (his complaints) is the THING used to carry out the EVENT. The meaning Joseph influenced someone with his complaints is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the infleunce of Joseph’s complaints; here, the Affected (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) influenced (someone else ) with Joseph’s complaints

THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Based on the above meaning, there are 4 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Affected and Accompaniment. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (influenced); the Affected (someone else) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Instrument (Joseph’s complaints) is the THING used to carry out the EVENT. The meaning someone influenced someone else with Joseph’s complaints is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the infleunce of Joseph’s complaints; here, the Agent (someone) and Affected (someone else) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

However, the phrase the influence of Joseph complaints is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

After breakfast, Catherine insisted on my bringing a chair and sitting with my work under the fit-trees at the end of the house; and she beguiled Hareton, who had perfectly recovered from his accident, to dig and arrange her little garden, which was shifted to that corner by the influence of Joseph’s complaints.

The phrase the influence of Joseph’s complaints in the sentence is still ambiguous since there are no words, phrases or clauses which give more information about the phrase. The phrase just told the reader that Catherine asked Hareton to dig and arrange her little garden, which was shifted to the corner by the influence of Joseph’s compliants. Here, we did not know who influenced Catherine to shift her little garden to the corner; whether Joseph who directly complained to Catherine about the garden and it influenced Catherine to change

her garden; whether Joseph complained to someone about Catherine’s garden, then someone influenced Catherine to change her garden.

(04) [16] The fears of the sister (NA: 110)

The phrase the fears of the sister can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is the sister fears something which is marked by implicit Affected; second meaning is someone fears the sister which is marked by implicit Agent. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected.

First meaning:

The sister fears (something)

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Affected

Based on the above description, the meaning the sister fears something

encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (the sister) is the THING which did an Action (fears); the Affected (something) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning the sister fears something is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the fear of the sister; here, the Affected (something) and is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) fears the sister

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Affected

The meaning someone fears the sister encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (fears); the Affected (the sister) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning someone fears the sister is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the fears of the sister; here, the Agent (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

The fears of the sister have added to the weakness of the woman.

The phrase the fears of sister is still ambiguous in the sentence. The phrase is not explained by the other words, phrases or clauses whether someone fears the sister or the sister fears someone. The sentence does not give more information about that. The sentence just told that the fears caused the weakness to the woman.

(05) [40] The memory of his brother (TCSH: 686)

The above phrase is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is his brother memorized something or someone which is marked by implicit

Affected; second meaning is someone memorized his brother which is marked by implicit Agent. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected.

First meaning:

His brother memorized (something or someone)

THING EVENT THING

as as as Agent Action Affected

From the above description, the meaning his brother memorized something or someone encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (his brother) is the THING which did an Action (memorized); the Affected (something or someone) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning his brother memorized something or someone is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the memory of his brother; here, the Affected (something or someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

Someone memorized his brother

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Affected

As can be seen that the meaning someone memorized his brother encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected.

The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (memorized); the Affected (his brother) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning someone memorized his brother is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the memory of his brother; here, the Agent (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

My hand has been forced, however, by the recent letters in which Colonel James Moriarty defends the memory of his brother, and I have no choice but to lay the facts before the public exactly as they occurred.

The above sentence just give an information that the speaker described how the speaker’s feeling when there was a letter from Colonel James Moriaty which defended the memory of his brother. However, there are no words, phrases, or clauses whether James Moriaty wrote a letter about his brother’s memory or about someone who memorized his brother.

4.1.3 Event Proposition which is marked by only Implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary

In this subclassification, there are 6 data of genitive of-constructions. Each data encodes Event Proposition which is marked by only implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary.

(01) [17] The compliment of John Thorpe's affection (NA: 143)

The above phrase can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is Someone gave compliment to John Thorpe’s affection which is marked by implicit Agent and Action; second meaning is John Thorpe gave compliment to someone as his affection which is marked by implicit Action and Benefeiciary. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary. First meaning:

Someone gave compliment to John Thorpe’s affection

THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Affected Beneficiary

From the above description, it is clear that there are 4 case roles involved in the meaning; Agent, Action, Affected and Beneficiary. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (gave); the Affected (compliment) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Beneficiary (John Thrope’s affection) is the THING which got advantage from the Action which the Agent did. The meaning someone gave compliment to John Thrope’s affection is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the compliment of John Thrope’s affection; here, the Agent (someone) and the Action (gave) are left implicit. Those implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

John Thorpe (gave) compliment to(someone) as his affection

THING EVENT THING THING THING

as as as as as

Agent Action Affected Beneficiary Attributive

Based on the above meaning, there are 5 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Affected, Beneficiary and Attributive. The Agent (John Thrope) is the THING which did an Action (gave); the Affected (compliment) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Beneficiary (someone) is the THING which got advantage from the Action which the Agent did. The meaning someone gave compliment to John Thrope’s affection is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the compliment of John Thrope’s affection; here, the Action (gave) and the Beneficiary (someone) are left implicit. Those implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

Although the phrase is in the sentence, it is still ambiguous. Let’s take a look the sententence as follows:

The compliment of John Thorpe's affection did not make amends for this thoughtlessness in his sister.

The above sentence just gave an information that his sister did not get amends from the compliment of John Thorpe’s affection. There are no words, phrases or clauses which give a clear information whether someone or John Thorpe who gave the compliment.

(02) [46] Last letter of the Duke’s (TCSH: 798)

The above phrase is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked different case roles; first meaning is Duke wrote the last letter to someone which is marked by implicit Action and Beneficiary; second meaning is Someone wrote the last letter to Duke which is marked by implicit Agent and Action. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary. First meaning:

Duke (wrote) the last letter to (someone) THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Resultant Beneficiary

The above meaning shows that there are 4 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Resultant and Beneficiary. The Agent (Duke) is the THING which did an Action (wrote); the Resultant (last letter) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action; the beneficiary (someone) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning Duke wrote the last letter to someone is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the last letter of the Duke’s; here, the Action (wrote) and Beneficiary (someone) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) (wrote) the last letter to Duke

THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Resultant Beneficiary

As can be seen there are 4 case roles involved in the above meaning; Agent, Action, Resultant and Beneficiary. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (wrote); the Resultant (last letter) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action; the beneficiary (Duke) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning someone wrote the last letter to Duke is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the last letter of the Duke’s; here, the Agent (someone) and Action (wrote) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

“I see. By the way, that last letter of the Duke’s–was it found in the boy’s room after he was gone?”

The above sentence just gave an information that someone found the last letter of the Duke’s in the boy’s room. In the sentence, there are no words, phrases or clauses which give a clear information about the letter; whether the last letter is written by the Duke or someone.

(03) [56] An entire party of Aurors (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: 10)

Semantically, the above phrase is ambiguous since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is Aurors held an entire party for someone which is marked by implicit Action and Beneficiary; second meaning is Someone held an entire party for Aurors which is marked by implicit Agent and Action. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary.

First meaning:

Aurors (held) an entire party for (someone) THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Resultant Beneficiary

Based on the above meaning, there are 4 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Resultant and Beneficiary. The Agent (Aurors) is the THING which did an Action (held); the Resultant (an entire party) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action; the beneficiary (someone) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning Aurors held an entire pary for someone is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase an entire party of Aurors; here, the Action (held) and Beneficiary (someone) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) (held) an entire party for Aurors

THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as Agent Action Resultant Beneficiary

As can be seen that there are 4 case roles involved in the above meaning; Agent, Action, Resultant and Beneficiary. The Agent (somoene) is the THING which did an Action (held); the Resultant (an entire party) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action; the Beneficiary (Aurors) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning someone held an entire pary for Aurors is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase an entire party of Aurors; here, the Agent (someone) and Action (held) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

“My Lord,” Yaxley went on, “Dawlish believes an entire party of Aurors will be used to transfer the boy—”

The above sentence just gave an information that an entire party of Aurors was purposed to transfer the boy. In the sentence, there are no words, phrases, or clauses which give a clear information about the party; whether the party is held by someone or Aurors.

4.1.4 Event Proposition which is marked by only Implicit Agent or Beneficiary

In this subclassification, there are 1 data of genitive of-construction. The data encodes Event Proposition which is marked by implicit Agent or Beneficiary. (01) [06] My offer of a wife (WH: 130)

The above phrase is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is I offered a wife to someone which is marked by implicit Beneficiary; second meaning is someone offered a wife to me which is marked by implicit Agent. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Beneficiary.

First meaning:

I offered a wife to (someone) THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Affected Beneficiary

Based on the above meaning, there are 4 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Affected and Beneficiary. The Agent (I) is the THING which did an Action (offered); the Affected (a wife) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Beneficiary (someone) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning I offered a wife to someone is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase my offer of a

wife; here, the Beneficiary (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) offered a wife to me

THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as Agent Action Affected Beneficiary

As can be seen that there are 4 case roles involved in the above meaning; Agent, Action, Affected and Beneficiary. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (offered); the Affected (a wife) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Beneficiary (me) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning someone offered a wife to me is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase an my offer of a wife; here, the Agent (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows: “Well. I won’t repeat my offer of a wife”

The above sentence just gave an information that the speaker would not repeat the offer of a wife. In the sentence, there are no words, phrases, or clauses which give a clear information whether the speaker who offered a wife to someone or whether someone who offered a wife to the speaker.

4.2 Genitive of-constructions that encode Event or State Proposition marked by Implicit Agent or Action

In this classification, the meanings of a genitive of-construction not only encode Event Propositions, but also encode Event and State Proposition. For example, if there are three meanings interpreted from a genitive of-construction, two meanings encode Event Proposition, one meaning encode Event and State proposition. In this case, there are 4 data of genitive of-constructions encode Event or State proposition. Each data can be interpreted into some meanings. Each meanings have different case roles which are left implicit.

As stated previously that there are only 3 data showed Event or State Propositions. Each meanings in the form of Proposition have implicit case roles which is marked by implicit Agent or Action. It means that the meanings have implicit Agent or implicit Action or both from one phrase.

(01) [10] The spectacle of Catherine (WH: 364)

Semantically, the phrase the spectacle of Catherine is ambiguous since it can be interpreted into some ways. There are three meanings which the writer got from the above phrase; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is Catherine made a spectacle which is marked by implicit Action; second meaning is someone made a spectacle about Catherine which is marked by implicit Agent and Action; third meaning is Catherine played in the spectacle which is marked by implicit Action. Therefore, the phrase is classified into

ambiguous phrase which is marked by Agent or Action. To make it clear that the phrase is ambiguous, the writer analyzed each meanings.

First meaning:

Catherine (made) a spectacle

THING EVENT THING

as as as Agent Action Resultant

Based on the above meaning, there are 3 case roles involved in the meaning of genitive of-construction the spectacle of Catherine. The case roles are Agent, Action and Resultant. The Agent (Catherine) is the THING which did an Action (made); the Resultant (a spectacle) is the THING which is produced by when the Agent did an Action. The meaning Catherine made a spectacle is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the spectacle of Catherine; the Action (made) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) (made) a spectacle about Catherine

THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Resultant & Topic Comment

State Proposition

Relation: Depiction

Formerly, the phrase The spectacle of Catherine is interpreted into two propositions; first meaning is someone made a spectacle which encodes Event Proposition; second meaning is the spectactle is about Cateherine which encodes

State Proposition. Then, those porpositions are combined into one proposition in order to make a simple proposition. Therefore, the form of meaning is someone made a spectacle which is about Catherine; however, the words which is is left implicit; actually, the words which is has a role in connecting the word spectacle and Catherine; thus, there is a relation depiction between a spectacle and Catherine; the final form of meaning is Someone made a spectacle about Catherine. The meaning consists of 3 case roles and 2 state roles; they are Agent, Action, Resultant, Topic and Comment. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (made); the Resultant (a spectacle) is the THING which is produced by when the Agent did an Action; in addition, the word spectacle also has a role as Topic which stands for State Proposition; the Comment (Catherine) is the THING which described that the spectacle is about Catherine, not someone else. The meaning someone made a spectacle about Catherine is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the spectacle of Catherine; the Agent (someone) and the Action (made) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.

Third meaning:

Catherine (played) in the spectacle

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Location

The above meaning Catherine played in the spectacle shows that there are 3 case roles involved; they are Agent, Action and Location. The Agent

(Catherine) is the THING which did an Action (played); the Location(the spectacle) is the THING which identified the spatial placement of the EVENT. The meaning Catherine played inthe spectacle is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the spectacle of Catherine; the Action (played) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:

He, poor man, was perfectly aghast at the spectacle of Catherine seated on the same bench with Hareton Earshaw, leaning her hand on his shoulder.

The above sentence just give an information that he was shocking someone by sitting on the same bench with Hareton Earnshaw at the spectacle of Catherine. However, there are no words, phrases or clauses whether the someone made a spectacle about Catherine or Catherine made a spectacle or Catherine just played in the spectacle.

(02) [59] The love song of A. Jerome Minkoff (American Corpus)

The above phrase can be interpreted into two meanings; first, A. Jerome Minkoff wrote a love song; second, someone sang a song about A. Jerome Minkoff. It means that the phrase is ambiguous semantically.

First meaning:

A. Jerome Minkoff (wrote ) a love song

THING EVENT THING

as as as

Agent Action Resultant

As can be seen that there are only 3 case roles involved in the above meaning; Agent, Action and Resultant. The Agent (A.Jerome Minkoff) is the THING which did an Action (wrote); the Resultant (a love song) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action. The meaning A.Jerome Minkoff wrote a love song is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the love song of A.Jerome Minkoff; here, the Action (wrote) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.

Second meaning:

(Someone) sang a love song about A.Jerome Minkoff

THING EVENT THING THING

as as as as

Agent Action Resultant , Topic Comment State Proposition

Relation: Depiction Formerly, the phrase The love song of A. Jerome Minkoff is interpreted into two propositions; first meaning is someone sang a love song about A. Jerome Minkoff which encodes Event Proposition; second meaning is the love song is about A. Jerome Minkoff which encodes State Proposition. Then, those porpositions are combined into one proposition in order to make a simple

99

5.2 Suggestions

In this research, the writer only examines genitive of-construction

semantically by analyzing meanings, propositions, and implicit case and state

roles. Thus, it give a chance to the next researchers who want to do further

researches syntactically and semantically; syntactically, it can be done by

analyzing the structure of genitive of-construction, and analyzing how to make

genitive of-construction unambiguous in the sentence; semantically, it can be

done by analyzing meanings which can be interpreted through meaning

properties.

100

Lauren Weisberger’s The Devil Wears Prada. Bandung: Indonesia

University of Computer.

Austen, Jane. 1818. Northanger Abbey. United State of America: Virtual Imprint

--- 1811. Sense and Sensibility. London: Millitary Library

Bronte, Emily. 1850. Wuthering Heights. New York: The Modern Library.

Cruse, Alan. 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to The Grammar of English. Cambridge:

University Press.

Keraf, Gorys. 1985. Diksi dan Gaya Bahasa. Jakarta: Gramedia

Larson, Mildred L. 1984. Meaning Based-Translation. America: University Press.

Lyons, John. 1981. Language and linguistik. London: Cambridge University

Quirk, Randolf, et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of The English

Language. London: Longman.

Rowling, J.K. 1999. Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban. United State of

America : Scholastic.

--- 2007. Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows. United State of

America : Scholatic.

Sari, Retno Purwani. 2006. Konstruksi Posesif Bahasa Inggris. Bandung:

101

Thomas, Linda. 1993. Beginning Syntax. United States of America: Blackwell

Publisher.

Twain, Mark. 1992. The Adventure of Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn. London:

128 A. Personal Identity

1. Name : Yulie Indriani

2. Place and Date of Birth : Cirebon, July 8th, 1989

3. Student Number : 63707010

4. Major : English Department

5. Sex : Female

6. Nationality : Indonesia

7. Religion : Moslem

8. Phone Number : -

9. Mobile Number : 02292796275

10.Address : Jl.Dipatiukur No.98p, Bandung

11.Email Address : voo_dream@yahoo.com

12.Weight : 47 Kg

13.Height : 165 Cm

14.Marital Status : Single

15.Parents

1. Father : Suhada

Occupation : Employee of PDAM Cirebon

Address : Jl.Tengah Tani, Desa Dawuan Rt

129

2. Mother : Sopiah

Occupation : Housewife

Address : Jl.Tengah Tani, Desa Dawuan, Rt

05/ Rw 03, Cirebon

B. Formal Education

No Year Institution

1 1994- 1995 TK Seroja Cirebon

2 1995 - 2001 SDN Kebon Baru VII Cirebon 3 2001 - 2004 SLTP Negeri 5 Cirebon 4 2004 - 2007 SMU Negeri 4 Cirebon

5 2007 - Now English Department

Indonesia University of Computer

C. Informal Education

No Year Institution

1 2003 - 2004 LBP LIA dr.Cipto Mangunkusumo Cirebon (Certified)

2 2004 - 2006 LBP LIA Kesambi Cirebon (Certified)

3 2009 Copywriting Seminar and Workshop (Certified)

4 2009 Story Telling Contest (Certified)

5 2010 Internal Discussion of English Letter (Certified)

6 2010 Copywriting Seminar (Certified)

7 2010 Translating and Interpreting Workshop (Certified)

8 2011 Feminist, Feminine, and Text (Certified) 9 2011 Trend Cyberpreneurship 2011 (Certified)

D. Experiences

No Year Organization

1 2002-2004 Member of Choir SLTPN 5 Cirebon 2 2001-2004 Member of PMR SLTPN 5 Cirebon 3 2004-2005 Member of PRAMUKA SMAN 4 Cirebon 4 2007-2008 Private Teacher

Bandung, July, 2011