ISSN: 2302-920X

Jurnal Humanis, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Unud

Vol 16.1 Juli 2016: 231 – 237

Structural Ambiguity Found In Reader’s Digest Usa Magazine

Ni Putu Vera Eryantini1*, I Nyoman Udayana2, I Nyoman Aryawibawa3 123English Department Faculty Of Letters And Culture Udayana University 1[[email protected]] 2[[email protected]] 3[[email protected]]

*

Corresponding Author

Abstrak

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah menganalisis makna-makna yang muncul dari kalimat ambigu secara struktural yang ditemukan di majalah berbahasa Inggris, Reader’s Digest USA edisi Agustus 2014- Desember/Januari 2015. Dalam penelitian ini ada tiga teori yang digunakan untuk menjawab 2 pokok permasalahan. Adapun teori yang dimaksud, diantaranya teori tentang kalimat ambigu secara struktural oleh Lyons (1977), teori tentang struktur kalimat dan frasa oleh Fromkin(1990) dan teori tentang eksperimnen sederhana untuk mengetahui keakuratan kalimat ambigu secara structural oleh Baker(1995). Penelitian ini menemukan 22 kalimat ambigu secara structural yang terbagi menjadi 8 kategori sesuai dengan faktor-faktor penyebab. Di dalam penelitian ini terbukti bahwa kalimat/frasa bahasa inggris yang tatabahasanya benar dengan struktur tertentu bisa memunculkan makna berbeda.

Kata kunci: ambigu secara structural, factor-faktor penyebab, kalimat/frasa

  • 1.    Background

In written language ambiguity can happen. Kreidler (1998:156) states the structure of sentences may lead to different possible interpretations which are generally known as structural ambiguity. Structural ambiguity is an interesting phenomenon, and natural in a language. Sentence structure obviously can lead to be ambiguous even though they are grammatically correct.

In the case of structural ambiguity, the grammar of a sentence can be interpreted in more than one way. For example the sentence They are killing animals. In the first case, killing animals is a unit and in the second, are killing is a unit. Killing animals is a noun phrase that functions as a complement, are killing is a verb phrase and animals is an object. The first sentence means they are animals that like to kill and the second means the animals are being killed by they (the subject).

Reader Digest USA magazine is one of famous trusted magazines all over the world. It is recommended as one of ten best English magazines for learning English which means the writing is grammatically good.

  • 2.    Problems

Based on the background, this study focuses on finding the answer to the following questions:

  • a.     What structural ambiguities are found in the articles of Reader’s Digest USA

magazines?

  • b.     What are the meanings of the ambiguous phrases/sentences found in the articles

of Reader’s Digest USA magazines?

  • 3.    Aims

To respond the problems, the aims of this study are:

  • a. To find out structural ambiguities in the articles of Reader’s Digest USA magazines. b. To analyze the meanings of ambiguous phrases/sentences of the articles.

  • 4.    Research Method

    4.1    Data Source

The data source in this study was taken from the articles of Reader’s Digest USA magazines from August 2014 to December 2014. This magazine was chosen as data source because it is one of famous trusted magazines all over the world. It is also recommended as one of ten best English magazines for learning English by fluentu.com which means its writing is grammatically good.

  • 4.2    Method and Technique of Collecting Data

The data was collected by applying the documentary method. In order to get the data, all the articles of the selected magazines were read carefully. By using note taking technique, the sentences containing structural ambiguity noted. And all the required data found in the selected magazines were grouped into different kind of structural ambiguity according to the factors which cause structural ambiguity.

  • 4.3    Method and Technique of Analyzing Data

The data are analyzed by using the descriptive qualitative method. All the data were then grouped into different kinds of structural ambiguities according to the causal

factors. One of data was chosen as representative to be analyzed. The structural ambiguity was shown by means of tree diagram and analyzed with the theory of Phrasestructure explications: grouping and categorization according to Lyons (1977). The simple experiment proposed by Baker (1995) was also applied in order to make sure the accuracy of the structural ambiguity.

  • 5.    Result and Discussion

There were seven different kinds of structural ambiguity in terms of surface structure found in the Reader’s Digest Magazine according to their causal factors.

  • a.    Structural ambiguity caused by constructions containing the coordinators and

    and or.


The sentence Visit metlifedefender.com today for a 30-day free trial and use code RDHOLIDAY14 to receive your 15% off or call 855-693-3637 is structurally ambiguous. The construction of the sentence contains two coordinators, and and or which connect three verb phrases of equal importance. Since each coordinator has different meanings, the sentence is led to be

ambiguous. The first meaning is Visit metlifedefender.com today for a 30-day free trial and use code RDHOLIDAY14 to receive your 15% off as the first choice, or just call 855-693-363. The second meaning is Visit metlifedefender.com today for a 30-day free trial and then do this; using code RDHOLIDAY14 to receive your 15% off or calling

855-693-3637.

  • b.    Structural ambiguity caused by a


coordinate head with one modifier

Structural ambiguity in sentence Joyce Wadler is a New York City humorist and a columnist for the New York

Times is caused by noun phrase ‘a New York City humorist and a columnist for the New York Times’. In this case, the PP for the New York Times does both modifying NP a New York City humorist and a columnist or only modifying NP a columnist. The first meaning is Joyce Wadler is a New York City humorist for the New York Times and also a columnist for New York Times and the second meaning is he is a columnist for the New York Times but not a New York City humorist for the New York Times.

  • c.    Structural ambiguity caused by attributive modifiers


Structural ambiguity in sentence I’ll pick out a person in the crowded who has a big sourpuss expression caused by NP big sourpuss expression. In the first tree diagram, the NP sourpuss expression is a unit modified by A big. In the second tree diagram, N expression is a unit modified by NP big sourpuss. The meaning whether a

person has a sourpuss expression that is strong or a person has an expression of a

big sourpuss.

  • d.    Structural ambiguity caused by a head with a coordinate modifier



Structural ambiguity in sentence We can eliminate waste from every business and government program is caused by NP every business and government program. There are three

meanings found in this sentence. In the first tree diagram, NP every business is a unit and NP government program is a unit. In the second tree diagram, N business is a unit modified by D every and NP government program is a unit modified by D every. In the third tree

diagram, NP business program is a unit modified by D every and NP government program is a unit modified by D every.

e. Structural ambiguity caused by negation


The sentence School didn’t resonate like before for teacher and student is structurally ambiguous caused by negation. In this case, the Aux didn’t does both effecting VP resonate like before for teacher and student or only effecting VP resonate like before. The meaning can be school resonate like before, but it is not for teacher and student or the meaning can be the

school didn’t resonate like before, and it is done for the teacher and student.

  • f.    Structural ambiguity caused by constructions containing the coordinating and

subordinating conjunctions


In this case the the S’ when shopping or filling out profiles online does both as adverbial complement for VP share minimal information and leave optional fields blank or as adverbial complement for only VP leave optional fields blank. The first meaning will be doing both share minimal information when shopping or filling out profiles online and leave optional fields blank when shopping or filling out profiles online. The second meaning will be doing

share minimal information doesn’t matter whenever it is, and leave optional fields blank

when shopping or filling out profiles online.

  • g.    Structural ambiguity caused by prepositional phrase tag


The sentence I will play songs for Jessie, about Jessie, my inspiration is structurally ambiguous, because the PP for Jessie, about Jessie, my inspiration in the sentence is able to work in two functions, whether as modifier of N songs or as adverbial complement for the V

play. The first meaning, the songs which are played are particular songs: songs about

Jessie and are given or composed for Jessie. It doesn’t matter for who the songs are

played. The second meaning, the songare played specially for Jessie. It doesn’t matter

what kind of songs they are.

  • h.    Structural ambiguity caused by verb inflections


The sentence You frightening Barbie! is structurally ambiguous caused by the word frightening in this form which is allowed to work in two functions, weather as an adjective or as verb. The first meaning is that Barbie is frightening. You are a frightening Barbie. The second meaning is that the pronoun ‘We’ at that time is frightening the Barbie. The Barbie is being frightened by you.

  • 6.    Conclusion

There are 22 structurally ambiguous phrases/sentences in 8 different types according to their causal factors found in the 5 editions of Reader’s Digest USA magazines, August 2014 to December/January2015.

This study shows English sentences which grammatically correct can be ambiguous structurally. A sentence which has differences in which the forms are grouped can be ambiguous structurally. A constituent in a sentence which has different functions to the sentence also leads the sentence to be ambiguous structurally.

  • 7.    Bibliography

Baker, C.L. 1995. English Syntax. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: MIT Press

Fodor, Janet Dean. 1977. Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar.

England: Harvester Press Limited

Fromkin, V. et.al. 1990. An Introduction to Language. 2nd Australian ed. Sidney: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Kreidler, Charles W. 1998. Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge.

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantic. Vol 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Thomson, A.J; Martinet, A.V. 1985. A Practical English Grammar. London: Oxford University Press

237