Role of Ambiguity in Producing Humor in Jokes Taken From The Internet.
ABSTRACT
Dalam menggunakan bahasa, termasuk Bahasa Inggris, terdapat
kemungkinan munculnya ketaksaan yang berpotensi menimbulkan perbedaan
pemahaman antara penerima pesan dengan penyampai pesan. Akan tetapi
ketaksaan tidak hanya mengarah pada hal yang negatif karena di dalam lelucon,
ketaksaan dapat dipergunakan dengan sengaja untuk menghasilkan kelucuan.
Dalam penelitian ini saya menganalisis lelucon yang memanfaatkan
ketaksaan untuk menghasilkan humor, dengan menggunakan teori humor dan
beberapa teori ketaksaan. Humor di dalam lelucon didasarkan pada teori
incongruity dan resolution, sedangkan teori ketaksaan utama yang digunakan
dalam analisis ini adalah teori yang diutarakan oleh Kreidler dalam bukunya yang
berjudul Introduction English Semantics. Kreidler membagi ketaksaan ke dalam
tiga jenis, yaitu lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity, dan syntactic ambiguity.
Teori pendukung diambil dari buku James R. Hurford dan Brendan Heasley serta
David Crystal. Mereka membagi ketaksaan ke dalam dua jenis, yaitu lexical
ambiguity dan grammatical ambiguity.
Hasil penelitian dari data berupa sembilan buah lelucon berbahasa
Inggris yang diambil dari empat sumber di Internet menunjukkan bahwa terdapat
penggunaan tiga jenis ketaksaan yang menimbulkan unsur lucu. Jenis ketaksaan
ii
Maranatha Christian University
yang paling banyak ditemukan adalah lexical ambiguity yang disebabkan oleh
homonymy. Dari seluruh hasil penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa ketaksaan
berperan besar dalam munculnya perbedaan interpretasi yang berujung pada
kelucuan di dalam lelucon-lelucon.
Penelitian ini diharapkan dapat membuka wawasan para pembaca
tentang ketaksaan sehingga walaupun mereka sebaiknya tidak menggunakan
bahasa
yang
bersifat
taksa
dalam
berkomunikasi
untuk
menghindari
kesalahpahaman, ketaksaan dapat juga dimanfaatkan untuk hal-hal yang positif
seperti untuk menghasilkan humor dalam lelucon.
iii
Maranatha Christian University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... ii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study ................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................. 5
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................... 5
Method of Research ........................................................................... 6
Organization of the Thesis ................................................................. 6
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……………………………. 7
CHAPTER THREE: ROLE OF AMBIGUITY IN PRODUCING
HUMOR IN JOKES TAKEN FROM THE INTERNET ....................... 22
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION .............................................................. 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 48
APPENDICES:
Table of the Source of Data……………………….………………….....52
Data ................................................................................................. 52
i
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Table of the Source of Data
No
Website
1.
http://www.musicalenglishlessons.org/jokes-
Data
Data 1
Data 2
Data 3
Data 4
Data 5
Data 6
Data 7
Data 8
Data 9
exduo.htm#key
2.
3.
4.
http://www.jokebuddha.com/
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/humor/
http://jilljuck.com/teacher-student-jokes
Appendix B: Data
Data 1
First man
: I‟ve just bought my wife a bottle of toilet water for £100.
52
Second man : You could have had some from my loo for nothing.
Data 2
A married couple was asleep when the telephone rang at two in the
morning. The wife (undoubtedly blonde), picked up the telephone, listened a
moment, and said, “How should I know, that‟s 200 miles from here!” and hung up.
The husband said, “Who was that?” The wife said, “I don‟t know; some woman
wanting to know „if the coast is clear‟.”
Data 3
A panda enters a restaurant, sits down, and order a sandwich. He eats
the sandwich, then pulls a gun and shoots the waiter dead.
As he stands up to go, the manager yells, “Hey! Where do you think
you‟re going? You just shot my waiter and you haven‟t paid for your sandwich!”
The panda yells back at the manager, “Hey, man, I‟m a PANDA! Look it
up!”
The manager opens the dictionary and sees the following definition for
panda: A tree-dwelling marsupial of Asia origin, characterized by distinct black
and white coloring. Eats shoots and leaves.
Data 4
Little Johnny greeted his grandmother with a big hug and said, “I‟m so
happy you‟re visiting us again, Grandma. Now maybe Daddy will do the trick he‟s
been promising us.”
“What trick is that, Johnny?” his confused grandmother asked.
“Well,” Johnny replied, “I heard Daddy telling Mommy that he was going to
climb the walls if you ever visited us again.”
53
Data 5
A woman goes into an antique shop and says to the owner, “When I was
in here last week, I saw a big mug with a flat head that holds a lot of beer. I‟d like
to buy it.”
“Sorry,” replied the owner, “but I can‟t sell you that.”
“Why not?” asked the customer
“Because that‟s my husband.”
Data 6
Teacher
: How can you prevent diseases caused by biting insects?
Jose
: Do not bite any.
Data 7
I clicked the tongue. "My new man. At nine tomorrow morning he will bring me
tea."
"Well, you'll like that."
"He will bring it to this room. He will approach the bed. He will place it on the
table."
"What on earth for?"
"To facilitate my getting at the cup and sipping."
"Oh, you mean he will put the tea on the table. You said he would put the bed
on the table."
"I never said anything of the sort."
"You did. Distinctly."
54
Data 8
A highway patrolman pulled alongside a speeding car on the freeway.
Glancing at the car, he was astounded to see that the blonde behind the wheel
was knitting!
The trooper cranked down his window and yelled to the driver, "Pull over!"
"No!" the blonde yelled back, "Scarf!"
Data 9
Teacher
: Tomorrow there will be a lecture on Pluto and Neptune.
Everyone must attend it.
Student
: Sorry, my mom wouldn‟t let me go so far.
55
56
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Language is an important part of a human’s life. Humans use language
almost every moment in their lives. Language primarily functions as an essential
tool for communication because it facilitates people to express their ideas. When
ideas are expressed, both orally and in writing, there is a possibility that the
receiver will get a message that the sender does not really mean.
This problem may occur for the reasons that, firstly, listening is meaningbased. The receiver combines the message from the sender with his own ideas
and experiences and then creates the meaning in his own mind (Nunan 24). It
has to be noted that each person may have different background knowledge,
opinions and experiences that influence the way a person interprets the meaning
of a message. The same principle also applies to reading. According to Nunan,
listening and reading are the two language skills which are commonly
categorized as the receptive skills of language (24).
1
Maranatha Christian University
Secondly, a word may have numerous meanings. This can happen in
Bahasa Indonesia, but such possibilities are more often found in the English
language. The word old, for instance, according to Oxford Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary has more than two different meanings. If someone says or writes, “My
old friend will visit me this afternoon,” the word old in the sentence can mean (1)
having lived a long time; advanced in age; no longer young (“Old,” def. 2) or (2)
known for a long time (“Old,” def. 4). Thus, this word is likely to cause a
misunderstanding between the sender and the receiver, particularly if the context
is unclear to the receiver. I borrow the terms “sender” and “receiver” from a
linguist named John Lyons (33).
Thirdly, in written communication, misunderstandings may happen when
the readers are confused with some expressions which are unclear in the text. In
such cases, most of the time they cannot ask the writer of the text to clarify such
expressions, which means that they have to determine the meaning of the
unclear expressions by using their own understanding, which is not always the
same as the writer’s intention.
Lewis Carroll, in his book entitled Through the Looking-Glass, also
suggests that there are possibilities of different meanings generated between the
sender and the receiver in communication based on the sender’s element of
choice about the meaning which he attaches to certain expressions. This element
of personal choice can cause the sender to even be unaware that he has used
ambiguous language. In one dialogue, we read, "When I use a word," Humpty
Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—
neither more nor less” (168).
According to Jeff Gray, Humpty Dumpty represents individuals who fail to
realize that words can have many meanings and that the receiver may not
always be able to understand the sender’s intention of the words used. The
2
Maranatha Christian University
variance of word meanings can sometimes pose problems in communication
because ambiguity is likely to occur.
A word or a sentence that is said to be ambiguous has more than one
sense (Hurford and Heasley 121). In using language, we often find that certain
expressions which are used by the sender can be confusing. This is due to the
fact that language has a tendency to be ambiguous.
Ambiguities can occur both in oral and written language. Ambiguities in
oral language are found in people’s utterances or speeches, while ambiguities in
written language can occur in any kind of writing, such as newspapers, novels
and letters.
In this thesis, I would like to discuss ambiguities in some written jokes
which are taken from the Internet. Jokes are, in fact, part of language; therefore,
they can also be analyzed by using the theory of language. Language serves
many important functions in people’s life. It does not only function as a means of
expressing people’s ideas, but it also has several other important functions, one
of which is to give pleasure, both to the speakers and the receivers. The use of
language for our enjoyment is based on our ability to manipulate language in a
creative way (Wiśniewski). A good example of this is a joke. Jean Paul states that
“joking is merely playing with ideas” (qtd. in Freud 41).
Ambiguity plays a significant role as a technique which is usually used to
create humor. According to Robert Lew, “. . . the presence of two interpretations
makes it possible for the joke to produce a humorous effect, arguably the most
essential property of a joke” (24). Furthermore, ambiguity can cause
misunderstandings
in
communication,
whereas
jokes
employ
the
misunderstandings to create humor. Thus, ambiguity in jokes is viewed as
something to be employed rather than avoided.
3
Maranatha Christian University
The title of my thesis is “Role of Ambiguity in Producing Humor in Jokes
Taken from the Internet.” I choose this topic because, first of all, the use of
Internet has increased in this era of technology. People tend to choose the
Internet rather than other sources because it is easier to find information on the
Internet. For my thesis also, Internet has provided jokes from many kinds of
genre, such as school jokes, blonde jokes, animal jokes, and lawyer jokes.
Secondly, ambiguity abounds in the English language. It is not always easy for us
to avoid ambiguity, and when it occurs, misunderstandings and humorous effects
are likely to be produced. Thirdly, humor is generally a part of a person’s daily
life. People are fond of making jokes and hearing them. Based on these reasons,
I find it interesting to analyze jokes and the ambiguities which make the jokes
funny. By analyzing ambiguity in jokes, people may improve their vocabulary,
learn more about English syntax and grammar in a fun way, and learn about
ambiguity as well. The study of ambiguity is important for people to have good
communication. On the one hand, it reminds us not to use ambiguous language,
in order to avoid miscommunication, whereas on the other hand, it teaches us to
acknowledge the positive, or humorous, side of
ambiguity in playful
communication. The study of jokes is also important because it may bring
learners of English to a perspective of humor of those whose mother tongue is
English.
In doing the analysis, I will use some theories of ambiguity, especially that
which is espoused by Charles W. Kreidler in his book entitled Introduction
English Semantics. According to him, ambiguity is divided into three types. I will
discuss each of these types further in the following chapter.
The field of my thesis belongs to semantics. According to John Lyons,
semantics is “generally defined as the study of meaning” (1). In semantics, we
study how language and people interact to produce and express meaning. It
4
Maranatha Christian University
includes the study of how meaning is constructed and interpreted. Besides
ambiguity, it has also many other branches, such as synonym, antonym,
hyponym, hyperbole, and tautology.
I hope this analysis can benefit future researchers, especially for those
who are interested in analyzing jokes by using theories of ambiguity.
1.169 words
Statement of the Problem
The problems to be analyzed in this thesis are as follows:
1. What kind of ambiguities is found in each sample of jokes taken from
the Internet?
2. What are the different possibilities of meaning that can be interpreted
from each ambiguous expression?
3. How do the ambiguities in the jokes contribute to the production of
humor?
Purpose of the Study
This study has the following purposes:
1. to show the kind of ambiguities found in each sample of jokes taken
from the Internet.
2. to show the different possibilities of meaning that can be interpreted
from each ambiguous expression.
3. to find out the way the ambiguities in the jokes contribute to the
production of humor.
5
Maranatha Christian University
Method of Research
Firstly, I decide the main topic of this thesis, namely, ambiguity in jokes.
Then I begin to do some library research by reading some books and other
materials related to the theories of ambiguity, humor, and jokes.
Secondly, I search on different websites on the Internet for some jokes
which can be analyzed by using some theories of ambiguity. Then, from four
websites, I gather nine jokes and read them several times to identify the kinds of
ambiguity used in the jokes and to perceive different possibilities of meaning that
can be interpreted from each ambiguous expression. Lastly, I analyze the data
and draw a conclusion based on the analysis.
Organization of the Thesis
This thesis is presented in four chapters. The first chapter is Introduction,
which contains Background of the Study, Statement of the Problems, Purpose of
the Study, Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter Two is
Theoretical Framework, which is used to present the approach for analyzing the
data. Chapter Three contains the data analysis and the findings. Chapter Four,
as the conclusion, includes some comments on the findings. The bibliography
and the appendices are found at the end of the thesis.
6
Maranatha Christian University
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
After investigating the role of ambiguities in producing humor in nine
written jokes which are taken from the Internet, I finally come to the conclusion
which is drawn from the findings of the analysis concerned with the purposes of
this study. I find that each of the nine jokes, which are taken from four different
websites, contains ambiguity. The types of ambiguity which are espoused by
Kreidler, Hurford and Heasley, and also by Crystal have been identified in the
jokes.
From the entire data, I found that the type of ambiguity that is most
frequently identified is lexical ambiguity, and the major cause of this type of
ambiguity is homonymy. Referential ambiguity and syntactic ambiguity, on the
other hand, are the two types of ambiguity that are less identified in the data.
I conclude that of the nine jokes there are seven jokes which use lexical
ambiguity. A possible reason for lexical ambiguity to be the type of ambiguity that
is most identified in my sample of jokes is that a word in English can have more
than one meaning, and it is even possible for words to have numerous meanings.
The word on in data 9, for instance, can have two different meanings, which may
lead to the subjects of the lecture or the locations of the lecture. As a
44
Maranatha Christian University
matter of fact, the word on has more than two denotative meanings. This
circumstance makes the tendency to misinterpret words increase and facilitates
the creators of the jokes to use words as their objects of manipulation.
Manipulation of words is the way we employ words that have tendencies to be
interpreted in more than one way in sentences to create possibilities of
misinterpreting the ambiguous words by making them interchangeable in the
sentence. Thus, it is easier for the creators of the jokes to create possibilities of
misinterpreting expressions by using ambiguous words and phrases than by
playing with the structure of a sentence or with reference. This statement also
gives an obvious reason for referential ambiguity and syntactic ambiguity being
identified less in the data.
I also find that in the analysis findings, each ambiguous word, phrase,
clause or sentence has an alternative meaning or an unintended meaning which
arises from the receiver’s misinterpretation of the ambiguous expression. It is
proved that the alternative meaning which emerges from one’s misinterpreting an
ambiguous expression always leads to the response, which in most cases
becomes the humor of the jokes. In data 1, for example, the ambiguous words
are toilet water which can refer to either perfume or water from a toilet. The
receiver of the conversation in the joke misinterprets perfume as water from a
toilet. His reply “You could have had some from my loo for nothing,” which
signals this misinterpretation, generates humor in the joke. However, there are
also some jokes, such as in data 2, data 3, and data 4, in which humor is
produced by the ambiguous expressions which are revealed at the end of the
joke. Data 3, for instance, is a joke about a panda that does the acts of shooting
and leaving as a result of interpreting these words as verbs. The humor of the
joke is conveyed when, at the end of the joke, the panda tells the manager and
also indirectly informs the readers to look at the ambiguous definition of the word
45
Maranatha Christian University
panda in the dictionary. The ambiguous definition that states “A tree-dwelling
marsupial of Asia origin, . . . . Eats shoots and leaves,” is in fact the source of the
panda’s misunderstanding. Without knowing this definition, the readers will not
know that the panda has misinterpreted the words shoots and leaves. A similar
explanation also applies to data 2 and 4.
These findings of the research have led me to the conclusion that
ambiguities play a significant role in causing misinterpretations that lead to
humor. Lexical ambiguity appears to be by far the type of ambiguity that is most
frequently used in jokes. Humor mostly lies in the inappropriate reply or response
towards the ambiguous expressions. Therefore, ambiguity triggers a wrong
interpretation, which then results in humor.
In relation to the theory of humor that has been mentioned in Chapter
Two, humor can be perceived through two stages, which are the identification of
incongruity and the resolution of the incongruity. In the nine jokes that I have
analyzed, the incongruity lies in the reply or response resulting from one’s
misinterpretation of an ambiguous expression, while the resolution is provided by
firstly identifying the ambiguity and secondly by acknowledging the possible
meanings of the ambiguous expression. In data 2, for instance, the student’s
reply “Do not bite any” indicates incongruity. At first this reply may not make
sense to the readers if they judge it only from the teacher’s question “How can
you prevent diseases caused by biting insects?” However, this reply makes
sense and becomes funny when the readers realize that the construction biting
insects is ambiguous and it can also mean “to bite insects.” Thus, based on this
theory, whether a joke is considered humorous or not depends on each reader’s
ability to detect and resolve incongruity.
This leads me to the conclusion that there are possibilities that the jokes
are not considered funny. Firstly, the readers who are still children may find some
46
Maranatha Christian University
jokes such as the jokes in data 2 or data 4, not humorous because the
ambiguous expressions in the jokes are in the figurative language, which are
probably rather difficult to be understood by children. Therefore, age factor also
influences the ability of a reader to detect and resolve incongruity. Secondly, the
readers, who are not familiar with Western culture, might find that the sample of
jokes in the analysis are not humorous because there are cross-cultural
differences in what is considered funny for Westerners. In view of that, the study
of joke is important so that learners of English can share the native speakers’
perspective of humor. Thirdly, ambiguity is not always easy to recognize,
especially by those whose mother tongue is not English. This makes the study of
ambiguity important for them so that they can have sufficient knowledge of
ambiguity, not only to avoid miscommunication, but also to acknowledge its
positive use in playful communication.
Finally, considering the significance of the study of joke and ambiguity, I
hope that in the future, there will be other studies that discuss ambiguity in jokes
that use theories espoused by other linguists. Seeing that lexical ambiguity can
be explored more for analyzing jokes, I suggest that studies which simply focus
on lexical ambiguity in jokes be conducted. The findings of my analysis, however,
may not represent jokes in general; therefore, a further research on ambiguity in
jokes by using the same theories may also be worth doing to verify the finding of
this research analysis that lexical ambiguity is the type of ambiguity that is most
frequently identified in English language jokes.
1.160 words
47
Maranatha Christian University
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Data Sources
“English Humour: Free Joke Dialogues.” Musical English Lesson. N.p. n.d. Web.
3 October 2011.
“Linguistic Humor.” Linguistic Humor, Wodehouse. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October
2011.
“Linguistic Humor, School Days.” Linguistic Humor. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October
2011.
“Linguistic Humor, Speeding Car.” Linguistic Humor. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October
2011.
“Recent Panda Jokes.” Joke Buddha. Panda in a Restaurant. N.p. n.d. Web. 3
October 2011.
“Teacher Student Jokes.” Jilljuck. Dumb Student Joke. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October
2011.
“Telephone Jokes.” Joke Buddha. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October 2011.
“Trick Jokes/Recent Jokes.” Joke Buddha. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October 2011.
“A Woman Goes into an Antique Shop and Says to the... Joke.” Joke Buddha.
N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October 2011.
48
Maranatha Christian University
Works Cited
“An Ambiguity-based Theory of the Verbal Joke in English.” The Linguist List.
N.p. n.d. Web. 8 October 2011.
Carrol, Lewis. Through the Looking-Glass. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Publishing
Co., Inc., 1995. Print.
“Climb.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 208. Print.
“Climb the Walls.” The Free Dictionary. N.p. n.d. Web. 10 October 2011.
“Coast.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 214. Print.
Crystal, David. How Language Works. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2005. Print.
“Dumb Blonde.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 360. Print.
Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Pelican Books,
1976. Print.
Gray, Jeff. “Collection of Ambiguous or Inconsistent/Incomplete Statements.” N.p.
n.d. Web. 3 October 2011.
“Head.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 549. Print.
“Hold.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 566. Print.
“Humor.” The Free Dictionary. N.p. n.d. Web. 15 February 2012.
Hurford, James R., and Brendan Heasley. Semantics: A Coursebook.
Cambridge: the University Press, 1983. Print.
“Incongruous.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 602. Print.
49
Maranatha Christian University
Kreidler, Charles W. Introduction English Semantics. London: Routledge 11 New
Fetter Lane, 1998. Print.
“Leaf.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 670. Print.
“Leave.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 671. Print.
Lew, Robert. “An Ambiguity-Based Theory of the Linguistic Verbal Joke in
English.” Adam Mickiewicz University, 1996. Web. 7 October 2011.
“Loo.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 694. Print.
Lyons, John. Semantics. Cambridge: the University Press, 1977. Print.
McArthur, Tom. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992. Print.
McGhee, Paul E., and Jeffrey H. Goldstein. Handbook of Humor Research.
Springer-Verlag: New York Inc., 1983. Print.
“Mug.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 763. Print.
Nunan, David. Practical English Language Teaching. The McGraw Hill
Companies, Inc, 2003. Print.
“Old.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 805. Print.
“On.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 807. Print.
“Participle.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 844. Print.
“Pullover.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 939. Print.
50
Maranatha Christian University
“Pull (sth) Over.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press,1995. 939. Print.
“Scarf.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1048. Print.
“Sense.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1070. Print.
“Shoot.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1088-1089. Print.
“Toilet.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1257. Print.
“Toilet Water.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1258. Print.
“Toilet Water.” The Free Dictionary. N.p. n.d. Web. 10 October 2011.
“Wall.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1338. Print.
Wisniewski. Language Functions. Angielski Online. N.p. n.d. Web. 19 October
2011.
Yugianingrum. “On Understanding Ambiguity.” The Proceeding of the 9th English
in Southeast Conference, December 13-15, 2004: Text and Contexts of
English Language Studies in Southeast Asia. Yogyakarta: Sanata
Dharma University, 2004. 218. Print.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Amen House, 1996. Print.
51
Maranatha Christian University
52
Maranatha Christian University
Dalam menggunakan bahasa, termasuk Bahasa Inggris, terdapat
kemungkinan munculnya ketaksaan yang berpotensi menimbulkan perbedaan
pemahaman antara penerima pesan dengan penyampai pesan. Akan tetapi
ketaksaan tidak hanya mengarah pada hal yang negatif karena di dalam lelucon,
ketaksaan dapat dipergunakan dengan sengaja untuk menghasilkan kelucuan.
Dalam penelitian ini saya menganalisis lelucon yang memanfaatkan
ketaksaan untuk menghasilkan humor, dengan menggunakan teori humor dan
beberapa teori ketaksaan. Humor di dalam lelucon didasarkan pada teori
incongruity dan resolution, sedangkan teori ketaksaan utama yang digunakan
dalam analisis ini adalah teori yang diutarakan oleh Kreidler dalam bukunya yang
berjudul Introduction English Semantics. Kreidler membagi ketaksaan ke dalam
tiga jenis, yaitu lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity, dan syntactic ambiguity.
Teori pendukung diambil dari buku James R. Hurford dan Brendan Heasley serta
David Crystal. Mereka membagi ketaksaan ke dalam dua jenis, yaitu lexical
ambiguity dan grammatical ambiguity.
Hasil penelitian dari data berupa sembilan buah lelucon berbahasa
Inggris yang diambil dari empat sumber di Internet menunjukkan bahwa terdapat
penggunaan tiga jenis ketaksaan yang menimbulkan unsur lucu. Jenis ketaksaan
ii
Maranatha Christian University
yang paling banyak ditemukan adalah lexical ambiguity yang disebabkan oleh
homonymy. Dari seluruh hasil penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa ketaksaan
berperan besar dalam munculnya perbedaan interpretasi yang berujung pada
kelucuan di dalam lelucon-lelucon.
Penelitian ini diharapkan dapat membuka wawasan para pembaca
tentang ketaksaan sehingga walaupun mereka sebaiknya tidak menggunakan
bahasa
yang
bersifat
taksa
dalam
berkomunikasi
untuk
menghindari
kesalahpahaman, ketaksaan dapat juga dimanfaatkan untuk hal-hal yang positif
seperti untuk menghasilkan humor dalam lelucon.
iii
Maranatha Christian University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... ii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study ................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................. 5
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................... 5
Method of Research ........................................................................... 6
Organization of the Thesis ................................................................. 6
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……………………………. 7
CHAPTER THREE: ROLE OF AMBIGUITY IN PRODUCING
HUMOR IN JOKES TAKEN FROM THE INTERNET ....................... 22
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION .............................................................. 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 48
APPENDICES:
Table of the Source of Data……………………….………………….....52
Data ................................................................................................. 52
i
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Table of the Source of Data
No
Website
1.
http://www.musicalenglishlessons.org/jokes-
Data
Data 1
Data 2
Data 3
Data 4
Data 5
Data 6
Data 7
Data 8
Data 9
exduo.htm#key
2.
3.
4.
http://www.jokebuddha.com/
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/humor/
http://jilljuck.com/teacher-student-jokes
Appendix B: Data
Data 1
First man
: I‟ve just bought my wife a bottle of toilet water for £100.
52
Second man : You could have had some from my loo for nothing.
Data 2
A married couple was asleep when the telephone rang at two in the
morning. The wife (undoubtedly blonde), picked up the telephone, listened a
moment, and said, “How should I know, that‟s 200 miles from here!” and hung up.
The husband said, “Who was that?” The wife said, “I don‟t know; some woman
wanting to know „if the coast is clear‟.”
Data 3
A panda enters a restaurant, sits down, and order a sandwich. He eats
the sandwich, then pulls a gun and shoots the waiter dead.
As he stands up to go, the manager yells, “Hey! Where do you think
you‟re going? You just shot my waiter and you haven‟t paid for your sandwich!”
The panda yells back at the manager, “Hey, man, I‟m a PANDA! Look it
up!”
The manager opens the dictionary and sees the following definition for
panda: A tree-dwelling marsupial of Asia origin, characterized by distinct black
and white coloring. Eats shoots and leaves.
Data 4
Little Johnny greeted his grandmother with a big hug and said, “I‟m so
happy you‟re visiting us again, Grandma. Now maybe Daddy will do the trick he‟s
been promising us.”
“What trick is that, Johnny?” his confused grandmother asked.
“Well,” Johnny replied, “I heard Daddy telling Mommy that he was going to
climb the walls if you ever visited us again.”
53
Data 5
A woman goes into an antique shop and says to the owner, “When I was
in here last week, I saw a big mug with a flat head that holds a lot of beer. I‟d like
to buy it.”
“Sorry,” replied the owner, “but I can‟t sell you that.”
“Why not?” asked the customer
“Because that‟s my husband.”
Data 6
Teacher
: How can you prevent diseases caused by biting insects?
Jose
: Do not bite any.
Data 7
I clicked the tongue. "My new man. At nine tomorrow morning he will bring me
tea."
"Well, you'll like that."
"He will bring it to this room. He will approach the bed. He will place it on the
table."
"What on earth for?"
"To facilitate my getting at the cup and sipping."
"Oh, you mean he will put the tea on the table. You said he would put the bed
on the table."
"I never said anything of the sort."
"You did. Distinctly."
54
Data 8
A highway patrolman pulled alongside a speeding car on the freeway.
Glancing at the car, he was astounded to see that the blonde behind the wheel
was knitting!
The trooper cranked down his window and yelled to the driver, "Pull over!"
"No!" the blonde yelled back, "Scarf!"
Data 9
Teacher
: Tomorrow there will be a lecture on Pluto and Neptune.
Everyone must attend it.
Student
: Sorry, my mom wouldn‟t let me go so far.
55
56
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Language is an important part of a human’s life. Humans use language
almost every moment in their lives. Language primarily functions as an essential
tool for communication because it facilitates people to express their ideas. When
ideas are expressed, both orally and in writing, there is a possibility that the
receiver will get a message that the sender does not really mean.
This problem may occur for the reasons that, firstly, listening is meaningbased. The receiver combines the message from the sender with his own ideas
and experiences and then creates the meaning in his own mind (Nunan 24). It
has to be noted that each person may have different background knowledge,
opinions and experiences that influence the way a person interprets the meaning
of a message. The same principle also applies to reading. According to Nunan,
listening and reading are the two language skills which are commonly
categorized as the receptive skills of language (24).
1
Maranatha Christian University
Secondly, a word may have numerous meanings. This can happen in
Bahasa Indonesia, but such possibilities are more often found in the English
language. The word old, for instance, according to Oxford Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary has more than two different meanings. If someone says or writes, “My
old friend will visit me this afternoon,” the word old in the sentence can mean (1)
having lived a long time; advanced in age; no longer young (“Old,” def. 2) or (2)
known for a long time (“Old,” def. 4). Thus, this word is likely to cause a
misunderstanding between the sender and the receiver, particularly if the context
is unclear to the receiver. I borrow the terms “sender” and “receiver” from a
linguist named John Lyons (33).
Thirdly, in written communication, misunderstandings may happen when
the readers are confused with some expressions which are unclear in the text. In
such cases, most of the time they cannot ask the writer of the text to clarify such
expressions, which means that they have to determine the meaning of the
unclear expressions by using their own understanding, which is not always the
same as the writer’s intention.
Lewis Carroll, in his book entitled Through the Looking-Glass, also
suggests that there are possibilities of different meanings generated between the
sender and the receiver in communication based on the sender’s element of
choice about the meaning which he attaches to certain expressions. This element
of personal choice can cause the sender to even be unaware that he has used
ambiguous language. In one dialogue, we read, "When I use a word," Humpty
Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—
neither more nor less” (168).
According to Jeff Gray, Humpty Dumpty represents individuals who fail to
realize that words can have many meanings and that the receiver may not
always be able to understand the sender’s intention of the words used. The
2
Maranatha Christian University
variance of word meanings can sometimes pose problems in communication
because ambiguity is likely to occur.
A word or a sentence that is said to be ambiguous has more than one
sense (Hurford and Heasley 121). In using language, we often find that certain
expressions which are used by the sender can be confusing. This is due to the
fact that language has a tendency to be ambiguous.
Ambiguities can occur both in oral and written language. Ambiguities in
oral language are found in people’s utterances or speeches, while ambiguities in
written language can occur in any kind of writing, such as newspapers, novels
and letters.
In this thesis, I would like to discuss ambiguities in some written jokes
which are taken from the Internet. Jokes are, in fact, part of language; therefore,
they can also be analyzed by using the theory of language. Language serves
many important functions in people’s life. It does not only function as a means of
expressing people’s ideas, but it also has several other important functions, one
of which is to give pleasure, both to the speakers and the receivers. The use of
language for our enjoyment is based on our ability to manipulate language in a
creative way (Wiśniewski). A good example of this is a joke. Jean Paul states that
“joking is merely playing with ideas” (qtd. in Freud 41).
Ambiguity plays a significant role as a technique which is usually used to
create humor. According to Robert Lew, “. . . the presence of two interpretations
makes it possible for the joke to produce a humorous effect, arguably the most
essential property of a joke” (24). Furthermore, ambiguity can cause
misunderstandings
in
communication,
whereas
jokes
employ
the
misunderstandings to create humor. Thus, ambiguity in jokes is viewed as
something to be employed rather than avoided.
3
Maranatha Christian University
The title of my thesis is “Role of Ambiguity in Producing Humor in Jokes
Taken from the Internet.” I choose this topic because, first of all, the use of
Internet has increased in this era of technology. People tend to choose the
Internet rather than other sources because it is easier to find information on the
Internet. For my thesis also, Internet has provided jokes from many kinds of
genre, such as school jokes, blonde jokes, animal jokes, and lawyer jokes.
Secondly, ambiguity abounds in the English language. It is not always easy for us
to avoid ambiguity, and when it occurs, misunderstandings and humorous effects
are likely to be produced. Thirdly, humor is generally a part of a person’s daily
life. People are fond of making jokes and hearing them. Based on these reasons,
I find it interesting to analyze jokes and the ambiguities which make the jokes
funny. By analyzing ambiguity in jokes, people may improve their vocabulary,
learn more about English syntax and grammar in a fun way, and learn about
ambiguity as well. The study of ambiguity is important for people to have good
communication. On the one hand, it reminds us not to use ambiguous language,
in order to avoid miscommunication, whereas on the other hand, it teaches us to
acknowledge the positive, or humorous, side of
ambiguity in playful
communication. The study of jokes is also important because it may bring
learners of English to a perspective of humor of those whose mother tongue is
English.
In doing the analysis, I will use some theories of ambiguity, especially that
which is espoused by Charles W. Kreidler in his book entitled Introduction
English Semantics. According to him, ambiguity is divided into three types. I will
discuss each of these types further in the following chapter.
The field of my thesis belongs to semantics. According to John Lyons,
semantics is “generally defined as the study of meaning” (1). In semantics, we
study how language and people interact to produce and express meaning. It
4
Maranatha Christian University
includes the study of how meaning is constructed and interpreted. Besides
ambiguity, it has also many other branches, such as synonym, antonym,
hyponym, hyperbole, and tautology.
I hope this analysis can benefit future researchers, especially for those
who are interested in analyzing jokes by using theories of ambiguity.
1.169 words
Statement of the Problem
The problems to be analyzed in this thesis are as follows:
1. What kind of ambiguities is found in each sample of jokes taken from
the Internet?
2. What are the different possibilities of meaning that can be interpreted
from each ambiguous expression?
3. How do the ambiguities in the jokes contribute to the production of
humor?
Purpose of the Study
This study has the following purposes:
1. to show the kind of ambiguities found in each sample of jokes taken
from the Internet.
2. to show the different possibilities of meaning that can be interpreted
from each ambiguous expression.
3. to find out the way the ambiguities in the jokes contribute to the
production of humor.
5
Maranatha Christian University
Method of Research
Firstly, I decide the main topic of this thesis, namely, ambiguity in jokes.
Then I begin to do some library research by reading some books and other
materials related to the theories of ambiguity, humor, and jokes.
Secondly, I search on different websites on the Internet for some jokes
which can be analyzed by using some theories of ambiguity. Then, from four
websites, I gather nine jokes and read them several times to identify the kinds of
ambiguity used in the jokes and to perceive different possibilities of meaning that
can be interpreted from each ambiguous expression. Lastly, I analyze the data
and draw a conclusion based on the analysis.
Organization of the Thesis
This thesis is presented in four chapters. The first chapter is Introduction,
which contains Background of the Study, Statement of the Problems, Purpose of
the Study, Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter Two is
Theoretical Framework, which is used to present the approach for analyzing the
data. Chapter Three contains the data analysis and the findings. Chapter Four,
as the conclusion, includes some comments on the findings. The bibliography
and the appendices are found at the end of the thesis.
6
Maranatha Christian University
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
After investigating the role of ambiguities in producing humor in nine
written jokes which are taken from the Internet, I finally come to the conclusion
which is drawn from the findings of the analysis concerned with the purposes of
this study. I find that each of the nine jokes, which are taken from four different
websites, contains ambiguity. The types of ambiguity which are espoused by
Kreidler, Hurford and Heasley, and also by Crystal have been identified in the
jokes.
From the entire data, I found that the type of ambiguity that is most
frequently identified is lexical ambiguity, and the major cause of this type of
ambiguity is homonymy. Referential ambiguity and syntactic ambiguity, on the
other hand, are the two types of ambiguity that are less identified in the data.
I conclude that of the nine jokes there are seven jokes which use lexical
ambiguity. A possible reason for lexical ambiguity to be the type of ambiguity that
is most identified in my sample of jokes is that a word in English can have more
than one meaning, and it is even possible for words to have numerous meanings.
The word on in data 9, for instance, can have two different meanings, which may
lead to the subjects of the lecture or the locations of the lecture. As a
44
Maranatha Christian University
matter of fact, the word on has more than two denotative meanings. This
circumstance makes the tendency to misinterpret words increase and facilitates
the creators of the jokes to use words as their objects of manipulation.
Manipulation of words is the way we employ words that have tendencies to be
interpreted in more than one way in sentences to create possibilities of
misinterpreting the ambiguous words by making them interchangeable in the
sentence. Thus, it is easier for the creators of the jokes to create possibilities of
misinterpreting expressions by using ambiguous words and phrases than by
playing with the structure of a sentence or with reference. This statement also
gives an obvious reason for referential ambiguity and syntactic ambiguity being
identified less in the data.
I also find that in the analysis findings, each ambiguous word, phrase,
clause or sentence has an alternative meaning or an unintended meaning which
arises from the receiver’s misinterpretation of the ambiguous expression. It is
proved that the alternative meaning which emerges from one’s misinterpreting an
ambiguous expression always leads to the response, which in most cases
becomes the humor of the jokes. In data 1, for example, the ambiguous words
are toilet water which can refer to either perfume or water from a toilet. The
receiver of the conversation in the joke misinterprets perfume as water from a
toilet. His reply “You could have had some from my loo for nothing,” which
signals this misinterpretation, generates humor in the joke. However, there are
also some jokes, such as in data 2, data 3, and data 4, in which humor is
produced by the ambiguous expressions which are revealed at the end of the
joke. Data 3, for instance, is a joke about a panda that does the acts of shooting
and leaving as a result of interpreting these words as verbs. The humor of the
joke is conveyed when, at the end of the joke, the panda tells the manager and
also indirectly informs the readers to look at the ambiguous definition of the word
45
Maranatha Christian University
panda in the dictionary. The ambiguous definition that states “A tree-dwelling
marsupial of Asia origin, . . . . Eats shoots and leaves,” is in fact the source of the
panda’s misunderstanding. Without knowing this definition, the readers will not
know that the panda has misinterpreted the words shoots and leaves. A similar
explanation also applies to data 2 and 4.
These findings of the research have led me to the conclusion that
ambiguities play a significant role in causing misinterpretations that lead to
humor. Lexical ambiguity appears to be by far the type of ambiguity that is most
frequently used in jokes. Humor mostly lies in the inappropriate reply or response
towards the ambiguous expressions. Therefore, ambiguity triggers a wrong
interpretation, which then results in humor.
In relation to the theory of humor that has been mentioned in Chapter
Two, humor can be perceived through two stages, which are the identification of
incongruity and the resolution of the incongruity. In the nine jokes that I have
analyzed, the incongruity lies in the reply or response resulting from one’s
misinterpretation of an ambiguous expression, while the resolution is provided by
firstly identifying the ambiguity and secondly by acknowledging the possible
meanings of the ambiguous expression. In data 2, for instance, the student’s
reply “Do not bite any” indicates incongruity. At first this reply may not make
sense to the readers if they judge it only from the teacher’s question “How can
you prevent diseases caused by biting insects?” However, this reply makes
sense and becomes funny when the readers realize that the construction biting
insects is ambiguous and it can also mean “to bite insects.” Thus, based on this
theory, whether a joke is considered humorous or not depends on each reader’s
ability to detect and resolve incongruity.
This leads me to the conclusion that there are possibilities that the jokes
are not considered funny. Firstly, the readers who are still children may find some
46
Maranatha Christian University
jokes such as the jokes in data 2 or data 4, not humorous because the
ambiguous expressions in the jokes are in the figurative language, which are
probably rather difficult to be understood by children. Therefore, age factor also
influences the ability of a reader to detect and resolve incongruity. Secondly, the
readers, who are not familiar with Western culture, might find that the sample of
jokes in the analysis are not humorous because there are cross-cultural
differences in what is considered funny for Westerners. In view of that, the study
of joke is important so that learners of English can share the native speakers’
perspective of humor. Thirdly, ambiguity is not always easy to recognize,
especially by those whose mother tongue is not English. This makes the study of
ambiguity important for them so that they can have sufficient knowledge of
ambiguity, not only to avoid miscommunication, but also to acknowledge its
positive use in playful communication.
Finally, considering the significance of the study of joke and ambiguity, I
hope that in the future, there will be other studies that discuss ambiguity in jokes
that use theories espoused by other linguists. Seeing that lexical ambiguity can
be explored more for analyzing jokes, I suggest that studies which simply focus
on lexical ambiguity in jokes be conducted. The findings of my analysis, however,
may not represent jokes in general; therefore, a further research on ambiguity in
jokes by using the same theories may also be worth doing to verify the finding of
this research analysis that lexical ambiguity is the type of ambiguity that is most
frequently identified in English language jokes.
1.160 words
47
Maranatha Christian University
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Data Sources
“English Humour: Free Joke Dialogues.” Musical English Lesson. N.p. n.d. Web.
3 October 2011.
“Linguistic Humor.” Linguistic Humor, Wodehouse. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October
2011.
“Linguistic Humor, School Days.” Linguistic Humor. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October
2011.
“Linguistic Humor, Speeding Car.” Linguistic Humor. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October
2011.
“Recent Panda Jokes.” Joke Buddha. Panda in a Restaurant. N.p. n.d. Web. 3
October 2011.
“Teacher Student Jokes.” Jilljuck. Dumb Student Joke. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October
2011.
“Telephone Jokes.” Joke Buddha. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October 2011.
“Trick Jokes/Recent Jokes.” Joke Buddha. N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October 2011.
“A Woman Goes into an Antique Shop and Says to the... Joke.” Joke Buddha.
N.p. n.d. Web. 3 October 2011.
48
Maranatha Christian University
Works Cited
“An Ambiguity-based Theory of the Verbal Joke in English.” The Linguist List.
N.p. n.d. Web. 8 October 2011.
Carrol, Lewis. Through the Looking-Glass. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Publishing
Co., Inc., 1995. Print.
“Climb.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 208. Print.
“Climb the Walls.” The Free Dictionary. N.p. n.d. Web. 10 October 2011.
“Coast.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 214. Print.
Crystal, David. How Language Works. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2005. Print.
“Dumb Blonde.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 360. Print.
Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Pelican Books,
1976. Print.
Gray, Jeff. “Collection of Ambiguous or Inconsistent/Incomplete Statements.” N.p.
n.d. Web. 3 October 2011.
“Head.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 549. Print.
“Hold.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 566. Print.
“Humor.” The Free Dictionary. N.p. n.d. Web. 15 February 2012.
Hurford, James R., and Brendan Heasley. Semantics: A Coursebook.
Cambridge: the University Press, 1983. Print.
“Incongruous.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 602. Print.
49
Maranatha Christian University
Kreidler, Charles W. Introduction English Semantics. London: Routledge 11 New
Fetter Lane, 1998. Print.
“Leaf.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 670. Print.
“Leave.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 671. Print.
Lew, Robert. “An Ambiguity-Based Theory of the Linguistic Verbal Joke in
English.” Adam Mickiewicz University, 1996. Web. 7 October 2011.
“Loo.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 694. Print.
Lyons, John. Semantics. Cambridge: the University Press, 1977. Print.
McArthur, Tom. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992. Print.
McGhee, Paul E., and Jeffrey H. Goldstein. Handbook of Humor Research.
Springer-Verlag: New York Inc., 1983. Print.
“Mug.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 763. Print.
Nunan, David. Practical English Language Teaching. The McGraw Hill
Companies, Inc, 2003. Print.
“Old.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 805. Print.
“On.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 807. Print.
“Participle.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 844. Print.
“Pullover.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 939. Print.
50
Maranatha Christian University
“Pull (sth) Over.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press,1995. 939. Print.
“Scarf.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1048. Print.
“Sense.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1070. Print.
“Shoot.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1088-1089. Print.
“Toilet.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1257. Print.
“Toilet Water.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1258. Print.
“Toilet Water.” The Free Dictionary. N.p. n.d. Web. 10 October 2011.
“Wall.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,1995. 1338. Print.
Wisniewski. Language Functions. Angielski Online. N.p. n.d. Web. 19 October
2011.
Yugianingrum. “On Understanding Ambiguity.” The Proceeding of the 9th English
in Southeast Conference, December 13-15, 2004: Text and Contexts of
English Language Studies in Southeast Asia. Yogyakarta: Sanata
Dharma University, 2004. 218. Print.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Amen House, 1996. Print.
51
Maranatha Christian University
52
Maranatha Christian University