AMBIGUITY FOUND IN BACKPACK 4 ENGLISH TEXTBOOK Ambiguity Found In Backpack 4 English Textbook.

 
 

AMBIGUITY FOUND IN BACKPACK 4
ENGLISH TEXTBOOK
 
 

ARTICLE PUBLICATION

Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education
in English Department

by:
MELTYSARI RISCAHYANTI
A320100193

SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2014

i
 

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAIJ S URAKARTA
FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMTI PENDiDIKAN
Jl. A. Yani Tromol Pos l-Pabelan, I(arlasurzr Telrp.90271)1111l7 f-ax: 715448 Surakarta 57102

Surat Persetuiuan Artikel Publikasi Ilmiah
Yang bertanda tangan dibawah ini pembimbing skripsi/tugas akhir:

Dr. Endang Fauziati, M.Hum

Nama

_Prof

NIP/NIK

274

Nama

Mauly Haiwat H., Ph.D.

NIP/NIK

727

Telah membaca dan mencermati naskah arlikel publikasi ilmiah, yang merupakan ringkasan
skripsi (tugas akhir) dari mahasiswa:

MELTYSARI RISCAHYANTI

Nama

:

NIM

: ,4320100193

Program Studi

:

FKIP Bhs. Inggris

Judul Skripsi

:

AMBIGUITY FOUND

N

BACKPACK 4 ENGLISH TEXTBOOK

Naskah artikel tersebut. layak dan dapat disetujui untuk dipublikasikan.

Dernikian persetujuan dibuat, semoga dapat dipergunakan seperlunya.

Surakafia, I I Februari 2014
Pembimbing I

Pembimbing II

Maul-v- Halr,vat

NIK:727

H.. PhO.

 

AMBIGUITY FOUND IN BACKPACK 4 ENGLISH TEXTBOOK

Meltysari Riscahyanti
A310100193
Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M.Hum.
Mauly Halwat Hikmat, S.Pd, M.Hum.

English Departement, School of Teacher Training and Education
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta (UMS)
E-mail: meltysaririscahyanti@gmail.com
Phone number: 089621539360

ABSTRACT
This study deals with the ambiguity which is found in Backpack 4 English
textbook. The aims of this study are (1) to describe what the types of ambiguity,
(2) to describe the frequency of each type of ambiguity, (3) to describe the
dominant type of ambiguity, (4) to describe the causes of ambiguity, and (5) to
describe the way to disambiguate ambiguity found in Backpack 4 English
textbook. The type of this research is descriptive qualitative research. The data
source of this research is ambiguous words, phrases and sentences found in
Backpack 4 English textbook. The data collection technique is documentation.
The technique of data analysis are descriptive qualitative. The writer uses the
theories from Fauziati, Kreidler, Robert, Roadman and Hyme to analyze the
types of ambiguity. The result of this study shows that (1) the writer found three
from four types of ambiguity namely: lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity,
and surface structure ambiguity; (2) the frequency of each type of ambiguity are
43 lexical ambiguity (24,57%), 74 referential ambiguity (42,29 %), and 58

surface structure ambiguity (33,14 %); (3) the dominant types of ambiguity is
referential ambiguity; there are 74 ambiguous sentences or 42,29%; (4) the
causes of ambiguity are without context, ambiguous word order, improper or
missing punctuation, faulty sentence construction, ambiguous words, and faulty
pronoun reference; and (5) the way to disambiguate ambiguity are using
paraphrasing, truth conditional sentences, adding preposition, moving sentence
construction, adding additional context, adding correct punctuation and using
picture.
Keywords: Ambiguity, lexical, referential, structural
A. Introduction
The existence of English teaching-learning process cannot be
separated from teaching-learning media, especially textbook. If the content of

1 
 

the textbook is too difficult, student cannot understand the important concept
of the material.
Some cases in textbook can make many students confused to
understand the purpose, such as: the words or sentences that have more than

one meaning. That case is called ambiguity. It can make them confused when
they translate their book. Teacher must be careful choosing the best
interpretations, so their students cannot come out of the context in that
textbook. So the writer conducts the study about ambiguity found in
Backpack 4 English textbook.
There are some previous studies related to this study. The first
researcher is Mega Irawati (UMS, 2012). Her research paper entitled “The
Analysis of Lexical and Structural Ambiguity in Your Letter Column of the
Jakarta Post Newspaper Published July 2012” talked about the types of
lexically ambiguous word and structural ambiguous word. She used
descriptive qualitative research. She also used the theory from Crystal (1980)
and theory of diagrams from George Yule (2006). Her research concluded
that structural ambiguity is the most dominant.
The second researcher is Pramitasih (UMS, 2012) who conducted a
study on the Ambiguity Found in English Exercises of Vocational School
Student’s Exercise Books. This study was aimed at 1) describing the type of
ambiguity, 2) describing the frequency and the dominant type of ambiguous
sentences, and 3)describing the way to disambiguate. In collecting the data,
Pramitasih used documentation. Based on the result of the data analysis, she
found 2 types of ambiguity. There were lexical ambiguity, and structural /

syntactic ambiguity. She found the method to disambiguate namely:
paraphrasing, adding preposition of, moving sentence construction, adding
additional context, adding Hypen (-) and picture.
The writer uses some related theories in this research. There are from:
Kreidler (2002: 11) states that a sentence that has two meaning is ambiguous.
Fromkin, Hyams, and Rodman (2011: 182) said that our semantic knowledge

2 
 

tells us when words or phrases (including sentences) have more than one
meaning, that is, when they are ambiguous.
Based on the Kreidler (2002), Kess in Fauziati (2009), Fromkin,
Rodman, and Hyms (2011) point of view above, the writer classifies
ambiguity in four types, there are: lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity,
surface structure ambiguity, and deep structure ambiguity.
Kreidler (2002: 50) states that lexical meaning is a meaning that
proposed by lexeme. Some linguists divided lexical ambiguity into some
kinds those are: homonym, homophones, and polysemy.
Kreidler (2002) writes referential ambiguity occur when a speaker has

one referent in mind for a definite expression like George or the papers, and
the addressee is thinking of a different George or some other papers.
According to Kreidler (2002: 151-152) there are four types of referential
ambiguity, that is: (1) referential ambiguity occurs when 1 an indefinite
referring expression may be specific or not; (2) Anaphora is unclear because a
personal pronoun; (3) The pronoun you is used generically or specifically; (4)
A noun phrase with every can have distributed reference or collected
reference.
According to Fauziati, sentence which are ambiguous in surface level
of syntactic relationship are called surface structure ambiguity (2009: 65).
Kreidler (2002: 169-170) there are six types of surface structure, those are:
(1) constructions containing the coordinators and and or; (2) A coordinate
head with one modifier; (3) a head with a coordinate modifier; (4) a head with
an inner modifier and an outer modifier; (5) a complement and modifier or
two complements; and (6) certain function words, including not, have
possible differences in scope.
Fauziati (2009: 65) deep structure ambiguity is the Sentences which
are ambiguous on the deep structure level of logical relationship. Based on
Kreidler book (2002: 170), there are three types of deep-structure ambiguity:
(1) Gerund + object or participle modifying a noun; (2) Adjective + infinitive,

tied to subject or to complement; (3) Ellipsis in comparative constructions.

3 
 

The writer simplifies the causes of ambiguity from some linguists
those are: without context (Reed, 2005); ambiguous word order (Mohunen
and Portunen, 2012); improper or missing punctuation (Lamb, 2008: 1);
Faulty sentence construction (Sclenker, 1999);; ambiguous words (Creig,
1998); and faulty pronoun reference (Hasnain, 2011).
Based on some linguists, the writer divided the way to disambiguate
ambiguity into five, there are: paraphrasing (Huford, Heasly and Smith,
2007); thruth conditional (Pool: 2007); adding preposition (Hovy and Tratz,
2010); moving sentence construction (Schlenker: 1998); adding additional
context (Karov and Edelman, 1998); and using picture (Barnard and Jahnson,
2005).
From the axplanation above, the writer formulate the problem
statement of this research, such as: what is the ambiguity found in the fourth
grade of elementary text book entitled Backpack 4? Based on the research
problem above, the writer formulates the research questions, that is: what are

the types of ambiguous sentence? What is the frequency of each ambiguity?
What type of ambiguity which dominantly appears? What are the causes of
the ambiguous sentences? and What is the way to disambiguate ambiguity?
So, the objectives of this research are: to describe the types of
ambiguity such as: lexical ambiguity, surface structure ambiguity and deep
structure ambiguity found in Backpack 4; to describe the frequency of each
type of ambiguity; to describe the dominant type of ambiguity; to describe the
causes of the ambiguous sentences; and to describe the way to disambiguate
ambiguous sentences in Backpack 4.
B. Research Method
This part deals with method of the writer to analyze the ambiguous
sentences in Backpack 4. It is divided into five parts, that is the type of the
study, data and data source, object of the study, data collection technique, and
data analysis technique.
Type of the study is a descriptive qualitative research. The data in this
paper are selected words, phrases, or sentences that are ambiguous in the

4 
 

Backpack 4. The data source of this paper is the fourth grade of elementary
textbook entitled Backpack 4 which written by Maria Herrera and Diane
Pinkley. This textbook was published in New York by Longman in 2013.
The object of the study is all the ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence
in English textbook entitled Backpack 4 which written by Maria Herrera and
Diane Pinkley. This textbook was published in New York by Longman in
2013. In this study, the writer applies documentation as the method of
collecting data in her research to get the data accurately. The technique of
analysing data is using descriptive qualitative.
C. Research Finding and Discussion
This study explains research finding and discussion of research
finding.
1. Research Finding
Research findings answer the research problem, there are: type of
ambiguity, the frequency of each ambiguity, the dominant type of
ambiguity, the causes of ambiguity, and also the way to disambiguate
ambiguity.
a. Types of Ambiguity
The writer categorizes types of ambiguity using theory from
Kreidler (2002: 41-169) and Kess in Fauziati (2009: 64). From analyzing
data the writer found three types of ambiguity there are: lexical ambiguity,
referential ambiguity, and surface structure ambiguity.
There are some examples of lexical ambiguity found in Backpack
4: (1) Backpack is full of fun and facts, project and pictures, too
(Backpack 4: 1). That sentence is lexically ambiguous in term homonym
because the word Backpack has more than one interpretation. The first
interpretation is a bag with shoulder straps that allow it to be carried on
student's back. The second interpretation is an English textbook entitled
Backpack. (2) Make endangered animal cards (Backpack 4: 60). That
sentence contains homophone that is located in the word endangered. The
word endangered can be interpreted in two different ways, those are: as

5 
 

endangered or (a species) seriously at risk of extinction and as in danger
or (someone or something) at risk or in danger. (3) He doesn’t like diet
soda (Backpack 4: 30). That sentence clearly contains polysemy that is in
the word diet. The word diet can be interpreted in two ways, there are:
drink with reduce fat or sugar content, and food to lose weight.
Then, there are some kinds of referential ambiguity found in
Backpack 4:Referential ambiguity occurs when an indefinite referring
expression may be specific or not, for example: Stories, puzzles, songs,
and games— (backpack4: 1). The word stories may refer to a specific
story, or some stories, or any stories. In the words puzzles, songs, and
games may refer to specific term or not, too. Then, Anaphora is unclear
because a personal pronoun, he, she, it or they, can be linked to either of
two referring expressions, for example: Dinosaurs, dinosaurs, what do we
know? (backpack 4: 50) That sentence contains anaphora, because
pronoun we have more than one reference if it is used in the different
context, there are: Pronoun we refers to the writer(s); Pronoun we refers to
the writer(s) and the reader; Pronoun we refers to the writer(s), the
listener(s), and the reader(s).
Afterwards, the pronoun you is used generically or specifically, for
example: Can you guess who is who? (backpack4: 8). That sentence
contains anaphora because the pronoun you have more than one reference,
there are: 1) Pronoun you refers to the editor(s) of ‘Friends Forever’
column; 2) Pronoun you refers to the reader(s); 3) Pronoun you refers to
the listener(s). Then, a noun phrase with every can have distributed
reference or collected reference, for example: We have noodles for lunch,
and everyone wishes you a long life (backpack 4: 80). That sentence is
called referential ambiguity because the word every has more than one
reference, there are: in ‘everyone’ means exercise for all people or each
people.
Then, there are some kinds of Surface Structure Ambiguity found
in Backpack 4: Constructions containing the coordinators and and or, for

6 
 

example: It’s fun to look for and trade cards or shells or rocks (backpack 4:
86). That sentence is ambiguous because it has more than one sentence
construction, there are: [look for] and [[trade] [cards or shells or rocks]]
(It’s fun to look for goods. It’s fun to swap cards or shells or stone); and
[look for and trade] [cards or shells or rocks] (It’s fun to look for and trade
goods, such as: cards or shells or rocks).
Then, a coordinate head with one modifier, for example: They are
friendly and fun to play with (backpack 4: 5). It is ambiguous because it
has more than one sentence construction, there are: [friendly] and [fun to
play with] (They are friendly, and its fun to play with.) [Friendly and fun]
[to play with] (They are friendly to play with and fun to play with.) Then,
a head with a coordinate modifier, for example: Smelling apples or
bananas every day can help you lose weight (backpack 4: 33). It is
ambiguous because it has more than one sentence construction, there are:
[Smelling apples] or [bananas] (This structure means smelling apples or
eating bananas.) and [Smelling] [apples or bananas] (This structure means
smelling apples or smelling bananas.).
Next is a head with an inner modifier and an outer modifier, for
example: Good times cafe (backpack 4: 31). It is ambiguous because it has
more than one sentence construction, there are: [Good times] [cafe] (It is a
good time to spend time in cafe) and [Good] [times cafe] (Nice clock that
is in cafe). Last, a complement and modifier or two complements, for
example: Five friends flee from five fat flies fast (backpack 4: 9). It is
ambiguous because it has more than one sentence construction, there are:
[Five friends flee from five fat flies] [fast] (Five friends flee fast from five
fat flies.) and [Five friends flee] from [five fat flies fast] (Five friends flee
from five fat flies which are moving fast.)
b.

Frequency and Dominant Type of Ambiguity
Based on the frequency, the writer finds 175 ambiguous sentences,

those are: 43 lexical ambiguity (24,57%), 74 referential ambiguity (42,29
%), and 58 surface structure ambiguity (33,14 %). The type of ambiguity

7 
 

that appears dominantly is referential ambiguity since the writer found 74
from 175 ambiguous sentences or 42,29 %. In detail, the dominant
referential ambiguity is Anaphora because the writer found 37 data from
175 referential ambiguity or about 21,14 %.
c. Cause of Ambiguity
From this study there are many cause of ambiguity found in the
data above, that is: First, without context, for example: Backpack Song
(backpack 4: 1). That phrase is lexically ambiguous because the word
Backpack has more than one interpretation. The reason of its ambiguity is
in the context that is not related with one of the interpretations. The
unambiguous sentences are: School bag Song (if it is a bag with shoulder
straps that allows it to be carried on student's back) or, Backpack Textbook
Song (if it is an English textbook entitled Backpack).
Second, ambiguous word order, for example: In Thailand, people
celebrate Loi Krathong, a festival of light and water, on the first full moon
in November (backpack 4: 76). That sentence clearly contains homonyms
that are in the word light. The context of that sentence does not focus on
one meaning. The unambiguous sentences are: In Thailand, people
celebrate Loi Krathong, a festival of fire and water, on the first full moon
in November. (if light means fire); or In Thailand, people celebrate Loi
Krathong, a festival of lamp and water, on the first full moon in
November. (if light means lamp).
Third, improper or missing punctuation, for example: They are
friendly and fun to play with (backpack 4: 5). That sentence above is
structural ambiguity. It is ambiguous because have more than one sentence
construction. The unambiguous sentence are: They are friendly, and fun to
play with; or They are friendly and fun to play with.
Fourth, faulty sentence construction, for example: I say I’m sorry if
I get impatient or angry (backpack 4: 8). That sentence is an instance of
structural ambiguity. It is ambiguous because it has more than one
sentence construction. The writer tries to disambiguate that sentence as

8 
 

follows: If I get impatient or angry, I say I’m sorry; or If I get impatient, I
say I’m sorry or I’ll be angry.
Fifth, ambiguous words, for example: Cristina Aguilera has polar
bear (backpack 4: 56). Sentence above contains polysemes because the
Italic word has more than one way to interpret. The unambiguous
sentences are: Cristina Aguilera has real polar bear (if it is the real thing);
or Cristina Aguilera has polar bear doll (if it is only doll).
Sixth, faulty pronoun reference, for example: We came back home
late on Tuesday the fourth (backpack 4: 75). That sentence above contain
anaphora, because pronoun we has more than one reference if it use in the
different context, there are: We refer to the boy in the picture and family;
or We refer to the boy in the picture and friends.
d. The Way to Disambiguate Ambiguity
Last, There are many ways to disambiguate ambiguity, that is:
Paraphrasing, for example: Back then, students didn’t have notebooks
(backpack 4: 67). The writer tries to make that sentence unambiguous as
follows: Back then, students didn’t have a small laptop; or Back then,
students didn’t have sheet of paper or known as books. Then, truth
conditional section, for example: They are friendly and fun to play with
(backpack 4: 5). From the ambiguous sentence above, the writer tries to
disambiguated it by using truth conditional section as follows: Ikey and
Mickey is so friendly animals I ever had. I always having fun if I play with
them.
Next is adding Preposition, for example: Families watch fireworks
and eat small round dumplings (backpack 4: 77). The writer presents the
unambiguous sentences as follows: Families watch fireworks and eat small
of round dumplings. Then, Moving sentence construction, for example:
They wear butterfly crowns and jewels in their hair (backpack 4: 100). It is
ambiguous because it has more than one sentence construction. The writer
presents the unambiguous sentences as follows: They wear butterfly

9 
 

crowns and butterfly jewels in their hair; or They wear butterfly crowns
and a lot of jewels accessories in their hair.
Then adding additional context, for example: The Komodo dragon
is also endangered (backpack 4: 53). The writer presents the unambiguous
sentences as follows: The Komodo dragon is also endangered animal
because it number is low and only found in Indonesia. Last is using
Picture, for example: Back then, students didn’t have notebooks (backpack
4: 67). The writer tries tp disambiguate the sentence above by using
picture as follows:

(a) Back then, students didn’t have notebooks. (b) Back then, students didn’t have notebooks.
(if notebooks mean book)

2.

(if notebooks mean laptop)

Discussion
In this research, the writer finds three from four types of ambiguity,
that is: lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity, and surface structure
ambiguity. Then, the writer tries to compare her finding with the previous
one, there are no similarities but has some differences. The differences
between this study and the previous one are Irawati found structural
ambiguity; Pramitasih found lexical ambiguity and structural or syntactic
ambiguity; Maharani found lexical ambiguity, surface structure ambiguity,
and deep structure ambiguity; Al Hakim found lexical ambiguity, surface
structure ambiguity, and deep structure ambiguity; Irawan and Dewi found
lexical ambiguity and grammatical ambiguity; and Kusumawati found
stuructural ambiguity and lexical ambiguity.
Based on the frequency, the writer finds 175 ambiguous sentences,
those are: 43 lexical ambiguity (24,57%), 74 referential ambiguity (42,29

10 
 

%), and 58 surface structure ambiguity (33,14 %). There no similarities
between this current studies and all of previous study, but there are some
diferences in it. The difference between this study and Irawati’s work is
Irawati found 38 data of ambiguous sentences consists of 11 lexical
ambiguity (28,9%), and 27 structural ambiguity (71,0%). Pramitasih’s
work found 23,8% lexical ambiguity and 76,2 % structural / Syntactic
ambiguity.
Maharani’s work found 12 lexical ambiguity (30%), 15 surface
structure ambiguity (37,5%) and 13 deep structure (42,5%). Al Hakim’s
work found 25 lexical ambiguity (51, 1%), 18 surface structure ambiguity
(37, 5%) and 5 deep structure

(10, 4 %). Irawan’s work found 15

grammatical ambiguity (65, 22%) and 6 lexical ambiguity (34, 78%).
Dewi’s work found 69 lexical ambiguity (83, 13%) and 14 grammatical
ambiguity (16, 87%). Kusumawati’s work found structural ambiguities is
80% and lexical ambiguities is 20%.
By using the frequency, the writer found the dominant types of
ambiguity that is referential ambiguity. There are 74 ambiguous sentences
or 42,29%. There are no similarities between this current studies and all of
previous studies, but there are some differences between them. The
difference between this study and the previous studies are: the first
previous study found structural ambiguity as the dominant types of
ambiguity; the second previous study found structural/syntactic ambiguity
as the dominant types of ambiguity; the third previous study found
structural ambiguity as the dominant types of ambiguity; the fourth
previous study found lexical ambiguity as the dominant types of
ambiguity; the fifth previous study found grammatical ambiguity as the
dominant types of ambiguity; the sixth previous study found lexical
ambiguity as the dominant types of ambiguity; and the seventh previous
study found structural ambiguity as the dominant types of ambiguity.
The writer also determines the causes of ambiguity, namely:
without context, ambiguous word order, improper or missing punctuation,

11 
 

faulty sentence construction, ambiguous words, and faulty pronoun
reference. The writer tries to compare this result with the previous
researchers, there is only Pramitasih that explain the causes of ambiguity.
The differeces between this study and Pramitasih’s Work is Pramitasih
found the four causes of ambiguity, that is: without context, improper or
missing punctuation, faulty sentence construction, and faulty pronoun
reference, while the current study found sixth causes of ambiguity, that is
as follow above.
The writer found some ways to disambiguate ambiguity, that is:
paraphrasing, truth conditional sentences, adding preposition, moving
sentence

construction,

adding

additional

context,

adding

correct

punctuation and using picture. The differences between Pramitasih’s Work
and this study is Pramitasih found the method to disambiguate namely:
paraphrasing, adding preposition of, moving sentence construction, adding
additional context, adding Hyphen (-) and picture, while the current study
found as described above. The differences between Maharani’s Work and
this study is Maharani found the method to disambiguate namely:
paraphrase selection and truth conditional selection, while the current
study found as described above. Last the differences between Al Hakim’s
work and this study is Al Hakim found the method to disambiguate
namely: paraphrase selection and truth conditional selection, while the
current study found as described above.
Then, the writer tries to compare her finding with the theory, there
are: the similarities between kreidler theory (2002: 41-169) and this study
is equally earlier finding lexical ambiguity, referential ambiguity, and
surface structure ambiguity. The diference this study with Kreidler theory
is the writer does not find deep structure ambiguity in the data.
The similarities between Kess theory in Fauziati (2009: 64) and this
study is equally earlier finding lexical ambiguity and surface structure
ambiguity. The diference this study with Kess theory in Fauziati is the
writer found three types of ambiguity that is lexical ambiguity, referential

12 
 

ambiguity, and surface structure ambiguity, while in Kess theory in
Fauziati divided ambiguity into on three levels, those are: lexical
ambiguity, surface structure ambiguity, and deep structure ambiguity.
The writer also tries to compare this result with some theories. The
result of this study is in line with theories above.
D. Conclusion and Suggestion
1. Conclution
The writer finds three kinds of ambiguity, namely: lexical
ambiguity, referential ambiguity, and surface structure ambiguity. The
writer finds 175 ambiguous sentences, that is: 43 lexical ambiguity
(24,57%), 74 referential ambiguity (42,29 %), and 58 surface structure
ambiguity (33,14 %). The writer assumes that the dominant ambiguity of
this research is referential ambiguity. There are 74 ambiguous sentences
or 42,29%.
The writer also detects there are a lot of causes that makes the
sentence become ambiguous sentences, namely: without context,
ambiguous word order, improper or missing punctuation, faulty sentence
construction, ambiguous words, and faulty pronoun reference.

The

writer found some ways to disambiguate ambiguity, that is by using
paraphrasing, truth conditional sentences, adding preposition, moving
sentence construction, adding additional context, adding correct
punctuation and using picture.
2. Pedagogical Implication
This research enrich the student knowledge about ambiguity.
Throught the notion of ambiguity, student can understand easily whether
the sentence is ambiguous or not. It can occur in their exercise books.
From the types of ambiguity, the student can differentiate the types of
ambiguity. From the causes of ambuguity, the student gas to be instructed
to make a sentence which is unambiguous by many different ways. From
the way to disambiguate ambiguity, the student can make the
unambiguous sentences from the ambiguous one. From the several

13 
 

benefits when there, the teacher can immerse the students to consider the
multiplural realities when they read, assess the students’ background on
reading, make clear the authentic context of their reading and to give
clearer understanding how ambiguity is not a huge problem.
3. Suggestion
Based on the research finding above, the writer of Backpack 4
still used a lot of ambiguous words and sentences. The writer finds 175
ambiguous sentences, that is: 43 data belonging to lexical ambiguity, 74
data belonging to referential ambiguity and 58 data belonging to surface
structure ambiguity. This condition makes the students or the reader
may confuse in interpreting the sentences. The writers of Backpack 4
should expect to write and compile the Backpack 4 textbook more
clearly in order to help the student’s understanding.
The teacher that teaches student by using Backpack 4 should be
more aware about the ambiguous sentence in this book, because the
writer

finds

175

ambiguous

sentences.

In

order

to

avoid

misunderstanding between the meaning of the texts and the students
interpretation, the teachers have to explain the clear interpretation to the
students. Besides that, the teachers are also expected to be able to
explain the diferences in the sound and meaning of the word. So the
students are not confused in the determining the meaning of the
sentence.
The term ambiguity is an exciting case to be the research topic
but the writer knows this paper is not perfect. So the writer hopes there
will be another researcher who attempts to take the same topic but
different in object, methods, theories, etc. Honestly, the writer hopes
that there will be a researcher who takes that term better than this
research. The writer also hopes this research will provide the
knowledge on ambiguous sentences.

14 
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Al Hakim, Luqman. 2009. A Study on The Ambiguity Found in English Test for
Junior High School Students.
Unpublished Research Paper,
Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Dewi, Retno K. 2008. An Analysis of Ambiguity in News Titled of the Jakarta
Post. Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Sebelas Maret
University of Surakarta.
Fauziati, Endang. 2009. Psycolinguistics an Introduction. Surakarta: Era Pustaka
Utama.
__________. 2010. Teaching English As Foreign Language (TEFL). Surakarta:
Era Pustaka Utama.
Fromkin, Victoria. Hyams, Nina. and Rodman, Robert. 2009. An Introduction to
Language. United States of America: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Irawan, Wening B. 2008. An Analysis of Ambiguity in the Articles of the Jakarta
Post. Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Sebelas Maret
University of Surakarta.
Irawati, Mega. 2012. The Analysis of Lexical and Structural Ambiguity in Your
Letter Column of the Jakarta Post Newspaper Published July 2012.
Unpublished Research Paper, Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University
of Surakarta.
Kreidler, Charles W. 2002 Introducing English Semantics. Londonand New York:
Routledge.
Kusumawati. 2001. The Study of Ambiguity in the Articles of Hello Magazine.
Unpublished Research Paper, Jakarta: University of Kristen Petra.
Maharani, Ikha M. 2012. A Study of Ambiguity in The Articles of Life & Times
Colums in The Jakarta Globe Newspaper. Unpublished Research
Paper, Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Pramitasih, Atik. 2012. The Ambiguity Found in English Exercises of Vocational
School Student’s Exercise Books. Unpublished Research Paper,
Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

15 
 

VIRTUAL REFERENCE
Al-sherkasy, Sundos I and Al-sherkasy, Istabraq I. 2009. Some Preoblems of
Ambiguity in Translation: with Reference to English-Arabic.
http://www.slideshare.net/falah_hasan77/some‐problems‐of‐ambiguity‐in‐
translation‐with‐reference‐to‐english‐and‐arabic.  Accessed  on  Friday, 
December 27th, 1013 at 4:21

Baldawin,

John
R.
2008.
Psycology
http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/370Syllabus.htm.
Wednesday, Desember 31th, 2013 at 9:46.

of
Language.
Accessed
on

Hasnain. 2011. Faulty Pronoun Reference. http://mzhasnain.com. Accessed on
Monday, June 11th, 2012 at 20:01.
Lamb, Bernard. 2008. Practical Guide to Punctuation. http:// queens-englishsociety.com/index.html. Accessed on Monday, June 11th, 2012 at
19:16.
Pool, Jonathan. 2007. Paraphrasal and Truth-Conditional Disambiguation of
Quantification: Which Work Better? A Pilot Experiment.
(http://utilika.org). Accessed on June 25th, 2012.
Sennet, Adam, Ambiguity. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ambiguity/. Accessed
on Monday, December 16th,2013 at 7:56.

16